Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was part of the evidence taking, and, with regard to this part of the bill, there was a strong emphasis on what protections there are, because there could be interactions or reactions, and on the importance of having a medical person there for that situation. There was also discussion about the premises, but, absolutely, there was stuff about how we protect the public if there are complications.

Our hard-working NHS staff always do the best that they can, but they are being driven to burnout. Protecting the wellbeing of staff is a vital part of ensuring that patients get the care and support that they need, but we are facing a workforce wellbeing crisis. What tangible action will the First Minister take in response to the issue of staff who are thinking about retiring early and leaving Scotland’s NHS—because of burnout, and not because they wish to? We really need their skills, and we should value their experience.

I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1.

During the committee’s evidence gathering sessions, it was clear that the bill could have the potential not only to address gaps in a largely unregulated sector, but to greatly improve patient safety, as has been said. With the growth in the non-surgical cosmetic procedures industry, a worrying gap has been highlighted in essential regulation to protect people. For too long, the industry has operated without proper safety, accountability and professional standards in place, and that has allowed many to take advantage of some of our consumers.

Just to be clear, I know that many practitioners seek to keep the sector professional and practise at a high standard—this is about the need for proper accountability and regulation. The unaccountability and lack of regulation must come to an end and introducing further restrictions is a necessary step towards improving patient safety, which is the top priority.

As I have said, Scottish Labour recognises that the bill is not perfect and that there are a number of concerns about supporting the move to a new era of regulation, safety and standards that must be addressed at stage 2. I recognise that the minister has committed to doing that. We want fair and appropriate regulation that ensures the highest standards in patient safety, while supporting those providers who deliver a professional and safe service.

A key concern that was raised during the committee’s evidence gathering was about the inconsistencies in the training and qualifications of people who provide non-surgical procedures. There was consensus on the need for robust training and national standards to be put in place to ensure clarity and consistency. I hope that the minister will be able to give some feedback on that in her closing remarks, because the committee made it clear that the establishment of clear and appropriate standards will be critical to the bill’s implementation.

In addition, serious concerns were raised about whether the sanctions for committing offences under the bill went far enough and whether they would act as a strong enough deterrent for bad actors who are willing to commit repeat offences. I welcome the fact that the Government has recognised those concerns and is considering what more can be done to address them.

An equally important issue for compliance is whether providers are being given enough support to help them ensure that they follow the law. The Government has been unable to provide any detail on what such guidance would look like, and it has not been able to confirm whether businesses will receive financial support for some of the transitions that will be necessary. We hope that that will be covered at stage 2, and I would welcome any comments from the minister to indicate that we might be able to work together on that.

As well as providing guidance for providers, the bill presents a welcome opportunity—

Good morning. The Scottish budget increases Social Security Scotland’s fiscal resource budget by around £40 million. In addition, a response to a recent parliamentary question indicated that 187 staff are moving from the Scottish Government to the agency. We have previously discussed that in the committee. What else is included in the £40 million resource budget increase?

That is what I was trying to get at.

That is helpful. You touched on the live running and digital development functions. The policy and delivery function within the Scottish Government has a budget of £32 million in 2026-27. Can you explain that? Does that also involve your department?

09:15

That is helpful—thank you.

I have one final question at this point. The spending review sets out cumulative savings and efficiencies for Social Security Scotland of £27 million across the spending review period. Is that proportionate? Are you content with that within the large scale of the social security budget?

I am sorry if I missed this, but I have been through my notes and would like some clarity. On scrutinising the budget, I think that I am correct that there is already a statutory duty for the Government to increase benefits in line with inflation and that there is some allocation from the two-child limit funds that the Scottish Government has received. Is that how you allocated money, or did you already have the money to uprate?

09:45

The Patient Safety Commissioner made it clear that those with lived experience are not being listened to and that the health board has failed to reassure and support patients. Patient safety should be our number 1 priority. Where is the safety in turning away women in early labour to drive 70 miles home or in women leaving maternity services with post-traumatic stress disorder? Women are telling us that lives are at risk and that something needs to change.

The Patient Safety Commissioner raised those concerns in a meeting of a committee of this Parliament. In the light of the community’s real concerns and the important evidence that the commissioner provided in the Parliament, what leadership will the minister show to ensure that services are made safe? Women need action, not more reports.

I start by thanking Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am always pleased to join in his debates, which are often on subjects that the Parliament does not have time to really shine a light on. Whether they are international issues, with a focus on peace, or issues such as today’s, with a focus on the care and delivery of services to our constituents, they are always important.

As others have said, it is important that we consider and describe the therapies that are mentioned in the motion—Dr Gulhane described them very much more eloquently than I can do—together with the intensity of the treatments. Stem cell transplant and similar cell therapies are often the only curative options for patients with blood cancers and other blood disorders. Patients can receive their own cells or cells from a donor such as a sibling or an unrelated volunteer.

From my research for the debate, it is clear that the toll on people’s health must be enormous. We can think of how the physical presentation of cancer might affect us in that way. We can see the physical presentation of disease and, in some therapies, the treatment is very present. We can all imagine how even the journeys back and forward for diagnosis and treatment might affect us physically. However, this important report lays out the reasons that a patient who receives a stem cell transplant and similar treatments must receive the mental health support that Bill Kidd and others have mentioned and which is also mentioned in the motion.

Although those therapies are potentially life saving, they are intensive, have a lot of steps to go through and, ultimately, have those life-long consequences that involve thinking about what is happening to the body. Typically, patients have made journeys for diagnosis, and, as we all know, it can then be very difficult to move on to a specialist service. A patient may have built up a link with services and then move to a specialist service before finally getting treatment. That treatment is intensive, with multiple visits, often in isolation, to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy before the actual infusion. The report has highlighted how emotional that journey is for both the patient and the family.

I want to raise the voices of my many constituents who live in very rural areas. It is often the case that such treatments cannot be carried out at local hospitals. Patients and their families accept that and understand the importance of having specialist services in centres of excellence. However, we must understand the additional strain that that puts on the family unit, who might not be able to provide support as frequently or immediately because of transport issues or other commitments far from those services.

I know that we in the chamber value the incredible specialist services and the work that they do. However, as parliamentarians and representatives of our constituents, we must think about how we can ensure that those families and individuals get the mental health support that they need. We know that the resources of the NHS are under considerable strain and that staff work incredibly hard every day to provide care and treatment—that is their job. However, it is our job to think about how we can maximise the impact of the points that were raised in the report. Others have mentioned specific things that I am sure that the Government is working on.

I look forward to the response from the minister on what we all agree is an important issue. I thank members for their contributions and, of course, I thank Bill Kidd for bringing the motion to the chamber.

18:51