Seòmar agus comataidhean

I commend my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy on her efforts to bring her bill to such an important stage. As my other colleagues did, I encourage the Government to seriously reconsider its position. The debate is about support for the general principles of the bill, and across the chamber, we can see agreement on those principles. Pam Duncan-Glancy has made every effort, and will continue to make every effort, to amend and adapt the bill as we go through other stages. I therefore start from the point of view of being glad to hear support in this area, but I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot get the bill through at stage 1.

I know how important the bill is to Pam Duncan-Glancy. She has been a strong campaigner on these issues for many years, working with many groups of disabled children and young people, and their families, to give them a fighting chance. I was struck by some of the case studies. Martin Whitfield used the example of a family that said that starting the transition process was the most stressful thing that had ever happened to them—their child had had brain surgery at eight years old, but it was more stressful than that. It is clear to me that parents and young people back the bill at this stage, albeit that we might have to make some amendments.

I believe that the bill provides an opportunity to move things forward. That is absolutely what we hear. Things have not moved forward for so many years.

Like other members, I was not on the committee, but I have researched the bill, and I have been in the Parliament for two years now, and I do not think that any legislation would be easily implemented.

The bill could place duties in legislation to support and enhance the transitions of children and young people, and, given the willingness of Pam Duncan-Glancy to work with people at stage 1, it is disappointing that we cannot get to a point where the bill could proceed through Parliament, so that we could try to pull what people describe as “cluttered” legislation together to get it to a point where we could deliver for people. We are here because we are not delivering for people.

Parents, children and young people have been working with Pam Duncan-Glancy on the bill, and they have found that the current system of support to help develop a transition plan is unclear and that support for parents is lacking.

I worked in the area that the bill covers more than 16 years ago. I remember the situation for parents and families, and that situation has not changed at all in the 16 years since I did my research. Strategies are not working, and committees talking to one another is not working, but the bill provides us with an opportunity.

I have said that stage 1 provides us with an opportunity, and Pam Duncan-Glancy has said that there would be ways in which we could get the legislation to work. Deep down, young people, parents and families have asked us to stop delaying, and we need to try and move things on for people.

I wanted to make so many points, but the main one is that young disabled people do not have the right to a transition plan early enough. There is little that focuses specifically on them, and there is no statutory duty on the Government to develop a strategy for their future. Families are saying that the system is not working for them. We are saying that that has been going on for years and years, and this is a missed opportunity to move on to stage 2.

The member’s intervention leads me to my next point, which is why—when an ideal opportunity, which would give people a bit of clarity that they desperately seek on legislative changes, has been put on the table—is the Government so reluctant to at least move to stage 2?

If I am honest, that is a recurring theme in the Parliament. I have said before that the Government is no stranger to a strategy, but it is very poor at delivering them. That is the truth of the Parliament. This is an opportunity to change that.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that all capital spending plans for the financing of the Scottish Government’s programme of national treatment centres will be delivered by the end of the parliamentary session, as committed to in its NHS recovery plan?

Pam, is that something that you feel the centre will be able to help with?

I am interested in how we might change to a more preventative model in the NHS and how we support that essential work to help people in our communities and the population generally. On reform in that direction, are the challenges in rural areas different? We talk a lot about the demographic changes in the rural population and the rural workforce. Are you looking at how we can ensure that that reform happens in remote and rural areas?

Good morning. I have been interested to hear your reflections on working in a different way and on attitudes to approaching women’s health. It is helpful to hear you talk about that.

My question is on funding. I am interested to know whether you have any reflections on how funding is used to support women’s health; whether the plan has enough funding attached to it; and whether there is anything that you think we might have to fund to get it right, such as the training and so on that you talked about.

You talked about training staff so that they approach women’s health in the right way. Do you think that there is enough finance in the system to do that, with regard to primary care, GP practices and so on?

How are you, as the women’s health champion, approaching that with the Government? Have you spoken to it about where the funding might come in, or where we might move money from?