Seòmar agus comataidhean

I also thank Rachael Hamilton for bringing this important debate. I was aware of her knowledge about and thoughts on the matter, but her speech was really good and well received. I thank her for it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Like many members in the chamber, I represent a rural region—South Scotland—and I recognise much of what is in the motion for debate. The agriculture industry is undoubtedly one of the most challenged out there—whether that is due to the weather, supply chain issues, uncertainty following the war in Ukraine or soaring energy prices. Farmers, farm workers and crofters are constantly battling the various factors that affect their livelihoods and businesses. With long hours, financial pressures and often isolated workplaces, farmers and the agriculture workforce are more susceptible to their mental health being under strain.

According, as we have heard, to the Office for National Statistics, the suicide rate for male farm workers is three times the male national average. That is a worrying figure, which has persisted over a long period of time. It shows the importance of having a particular focus on improving rural mental health. It is a devastating statistic that we must all take very seriously.

Numerous studies that I came across while preparing for today’s debate highlight the wide range of mental health challenges that face people in rural Scotland. Alarmingly, there are also the false conclusions about the idyllic countryside lifestyle and moving to the countryside for a better life—the kind of thing that we see on the TV, but which is just not the reality for so many people.

I welcome the fact that mental health in rural communities is receiving more attention. It appears that we are beginning to turn a corner in recognising its vital importance to the wellbeing of countryside communities. Nonetheless, let me be clear that recognition on its own will not push the needle forward. It will require considerable and targeted campaigning, as we have heard, and investment over a long period of time. We need a long-term commitment to the issue.

Although investment in mental health services is necessary, that alone will not deliver the change that we need. We require a strong economy that delivers for rural areas and improves the likelihood not only of mental wellbeing but of physical, social and economic wellbeing, which are absolutely essential.

Thank you.

I absolutely agree. I was fully behind the commitment from the Labour Party in 2019 when we talked about the internet being the equivalent of the libraries of the early 20th century. It opens up opportunities for people and businesses and it absolutely tackles isolation. I think that we would all agree that the pandemic proved that beyond doubt. We need to get that infrastructure work done and we need to prioritise areas where it would make the biggest difference.

For too long, we have focused over much on urban areas. Tess White made a good point about how we should manage services in our rural economies, some of which we have forgotten about.

In the interests of time I will omit other points that I was going to make, and which Emma Harper has already raised, on ensuring that we have good services and that people can see the benefit of meeting up and having places to go to. I believe in the importance of good public services in rural areas.

I thank other members for their contributions. The idea that we should be working together to make such change happen is so important.

I start by apologising to fellow members, as I will not be able to remain in the chamber for the entire debate. I have been granted permission by you, Presiding Officer, to leave before its conclusion, so I thank you for that.

I thank my colleagues on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for their work on the bill. I was not on the committee at that time, but I know how hard they worked. I also thank the committee clerks for their guidance.

As my colleague Paul Sweeney mentioned, Labour will support the bill at stage 1. We agree with the general principles and, as such, we support the establishment of a patient safety commissioner to ensure that patients have a champion and a voice to protect their interests.

For too long, patient safety has not been prioritised by the Government. We have heard some clear examples from members today of the tragedy that has been experienced by families who, for too long, were made to suffer in silence. If the minister truly wishes the establishment of a commissioner to lead to real and meaningful change, she must listen to committee recommendations on ensuring that lived experience is heard and considered at every stage of the appointment process.

Moreover, the Scottish Government must agree to Labour’s calls for the commissioner, when appointed, to be well resourced with funding, as colleagues have mentioned, and to have the power to stand up for patients’ rights and to advocate for the safe treatment and care that they should receive. We want the bill to be successful, but we also want it to be meaningful. The appointment of a commissioner is the first step, but there will be a long way to go afterwards to deliver for patients across the country.

In her response to the committee’s recommendations addressing calls to define “patient safety”, the minister noted that she believed that

“the meaning of ‘safety’ is well understood by patients and the public.”

That may well be true, but we do not know whether it is well understood by the Scottish Government. Despite safe staffing legislation having been passed years ago, health and social care staff are still waiting for implementation of the legislation to improve conditions.

We know from trade unions such as Unison that low staffing levels is one of the many issues that staff face, which is dangerous to staff and patients. Given that it took the Government four years to confirm when it would implement legislation that has a particular focus on improving staff and patient safety, how can people have confidence that things will be any different in this case? Patient safety cannot be improved without significant improvements to staff safety—they go hand in hand. Indeed, on that point, the minister might wish to consider whether the bill should provide clarity on the commissioner’s role in taking forward the concerns of staff who raise patient safety issues.

Therefore, we need a commitment that the bill will be meaningful and will positively impact patients. Scottish Labour will continue to call for existing challenges in staffing safety to be addressed in order to ensure that the bill does not fail to achieve the aims that have been set out.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned, we know that the commissioner’s initial remit will not include social care, and the committee supports that position. However, I note from the minister’s letter to the committee that she acknowledges that that requires flexibility. Although I stress the importance of considering the committee’s recommendation regarding giving the commissioner the ability to have a role in issues that intersect and transcend health and social care, the minister raises an important point.

The new patient safety commissioner will have their work cut out for them if they are to address issues linked to patient safety with the gravity that they deserve, but concerns around funding levels are real and must not be ignored. I hope that the minister will work constructively at future stages—as, I am sure, she will—to ensure that the bill is as strong as possible. From what we are hearing from members across the chamber, that is where we want to be.

However, we cannot suggest for a moment that a patient safety commissioner alone will produce significant improvements to patient safety. As we have seen in recent times, confidence has eroded due to scandals that have been linked to patient safety. They have often, as we have heard, been linked to women’s health, including the use of mesh and, more recently, the provision of endometriosis care.

Although the bill is welcomed, the Scottish National Party has overseen long-term decline in the running of public services, and, although clinicians and staff go above and beyond for patients, confidence is not where we want it to be and people are demanding real and tangible change.

In conclusion, the bill has our support at stage 1. The bill is well intentioned and is similar to the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019. If it is implemented effectively and with purpose, and if it is supported by financial resources and the freedom of the commissioner to stand up for patients’ rights and to advocate for safe treatment and care, it can be successful. It is important that we reverse the trend and work towards delivering positive patient experiences and improved patient safety. I thank members for the debate.

Good morning. I am keen to have a robust discussion on the matter. There is no doubt that what has come out of the discussions is that the national care service proposals do not address what needs to be sorted now, and that there are many things that we can do to help with social care, which is in absolute crisis, as we have heard.

I was very heartened to hear the minister’s contribution on the professionalism of the workforce and how we make sure that that workforce has good training. However, from talking to the trade unions, there is absolutely no doubt that we need to look at pay and terms and conditions across the board. The unions are very keen to look at sectoral collective bargaining. I am interested to know from the minister and officials whether there is a plan to look at that and whether they will commit to it for the social care workforce.

I do accept that that is what you want to do. The problem for me is that often, in Parliament, we do lots of talking, but we need action. Therefore, I am keen to have a timetable saying when we might be able to move towards better pay and terms and conditions for staff.

I have a very short last question on private profit in care, which you mentioned earlier. We need to discuss that again. I hope that you will understand that social care is not about private profit, and that we need to work hard to make sure that that is removed from the system.

Do you accept that we need to be brave with some of the stuff that my colleague Paul Sweeney mentioned in relation to the economics of health and social care and breaking the cycle of huge overspend and delayed discharge, and that the way to resolve that is to make those decisions?

That sounds good. I do not know whether the minister would commit to coming back within a short timeframe to lay out some of her suggestions for that.

That is lovely—thank you. I am sure that the member will understand that the next part of my speech very much addresses that particular issue, so her intervention is very welcome.

The role that employers play in protecting employees, in particular those who work outdoors during periods of high temperature, cannot be underestimated—as we all agree, it seems. During last year’s heatwave, the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress rightly called on employers to provide sun cream and advice on the need for protection from the sun when employees were working outdoors.

From a workplace perspective, the TUC argued that sun cream is PPE and should be considered as such, and that, although it is within the rights of an employee to refuse to take up the offer of wearing PPE—in this case, sun cream—for whatever reason, it should remain the case that employers are fully expected to still make that offer to the wider workforce.

When we think about the times when we may be at highest risk of damaging ourselves in the sun, we often think about being on the beach or overseas. However, the NHS rightly advises the public that they can burn in the UK, even—as we have heard—if it is cloudy, and that sunburn, as we have also heard, increases the risk of skin cancer. We must always be aware of the risk, no matter where we are and no matter what the weather is.

It is absolutely right, therefore, that we debate the matter and look at all the avenues, including the campaign that has been spoken about today, and I thank Amy Callaghan MP for the opportunity to discuss it in the chamber. We can, and we must, do better for people.

My party and I fully appreciate and acknowledge the importance of protecting skin from the sun. In this place, where we have the power to do something, we should always ensure that we do what we can. We must increase awareness, and every member has done so tonight. I thank Jackie Dunbar once again for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank all those members who have spoken this evening.

I, too, thank Jackie Dunbar for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It is right that we debate this topic, because it is important that we consider the campaign and discuss all options that would allow people to be safer in the sun.

As the motion states, the vast majority of melanoma cases

“could be prevented by staying safe in the sun”,

and so it is critical that we are always raising awareness of the key components of good sun safety practice. Those include, as has been mentioned, wearing clothes that provide sun protection, finding shade and taking extra precautions if you have any, or many, moles.

In addition, it is only right that we take the opportunity, in this debate, to look at where the Scottish Parliament has, in the past, legislated to tackle the incidence rate of skin cancers in Scotland. As members may know, the former Labour MSP and Presiding Officer of the Parliament, Ken Macintosh, delivered legislation that directly addressed the lack of clear and visible warnings surrounding the use of sunbeds, which we know has direct links to skin cancer, sunburn and other skin-related conditions.

That was important when the legislation was introduced, and it remains so now—possibly even more so, given that analysis of Britain’s high streets has revealed that businesses such as tanning salons are concentrated in areas of the country that already have high levels of deprivation and are perhaps targeting specific communities. It is important that we get a chance to discuss those broader issues in the chamber.