Seòmar agus comataidhean

Have any of you had information about when we might get some movement on the set-up of the system? Have you had anything through the health boards? You indicate that you have not.

My question is linked and is about socioeconomic factors and deprivation. Lynne Glen’s points were well made. Do you or other panel members want to highlight anything that we can consider when we think about how to help?

Gordon Jamieson, is there anything that you would like to add?

That is helpful—thank you.

Thank you for all the detailed information. My question might give you a chance to give us some homework. The Scottish Government has committed to the development of a national centre for remote and rural healthcare for Scotland. What might your aspirations for such a centre be?

The committee has also committed to trying to undertake an inquiry into remote and rural healthcare. Do you have anything that we should specifically direct it to? Please give us some work to do.

Is there anything that is particular to women and girls, or is the issue more general? Do some socioeconomic factors specifically affect women and girls?

That is helpful. Thank you very much.

Despite the harrowing stories from today’s debate, I am pleased to be closing it on behalf of Scottish Labour. Why? Because the Government needs to be held to account. Given the minister’s contribution, it is absolutely right that we in Labour focus in our time to lead debates in the chamber on the crisis in mental health that is impacting so many across our country and putting significant pressure on NHS and community services.

The minister is new to post and “confident”, and I hope that she delivers. However, after reading the SNP amendment and listening to the minister’s contributions, people could be forgiven for thinking that all was well with the provision of mental health services in Scotland, but there has been a failure by the Government, and we need to be honest about that. I ask back-bench SNP members to be honest, because part of their role is to hold their front-bench colleagues to account. Yet again, the SNP pats itself on the back, blames every factor other than the obvious one—its governance—and still refuses to see the urgent need for systemic change in this area.

Across the chamber, we all agree that nothing is more important than the wellbeing of our population. That includes their physical, economic and social wellbeing; critically, it also includes their mental wellbeing. As we have heard in the debate, and as is set out in Labour’s motion, there are almost 30,000 children, young people and adults on waiting lists. Adults from our most deprived areas are more likely to experience anxiety and depression and, tragically, are more likely to die from suicide.

Despite all that, the key commitment to hire 1,000 mental health specialists to help to improve community mental health services has not even started to be delivered. That is not representative of a Government that prioritises mental health treatment. It is representative of a Government whose inability to address staff shortages undermines efforts to improve care—a Government that is no stranger to a strategy but which has a poor relationship with delivery.

As my colleague Jackie Baillie mentioned, and as our motion says, the number of mental health-related calls to NHS 24 was almost seven times higher in 2022 than it was in 2019. We all accept that the pandemic had a significant role to play in that, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that that is when the problem started. The challenges that we face today with the delivery of mental health services in Scotland are a result of long-term inaction by the Scottish Government. Our communities, our mental health workforce and our patients deserve so much more.

We must all echo the call of my colleague Jackie Baillie for at least 11 per cent of the overall NHS budget to be directed towards mental health services. I urge the Government to look at that again. I also ask the minister to address the question that my colleague asked about the research and analysis by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Proportionately, Scotland’s mental health budget is less now than it was a decade ago. Will the SNP Government address that?

We must also look at how the budget can be targeted and our investment focused on community-based services. As well as having a focus on early intervention and CAMHS for our young people, we need to address the root cause of the loneliness and isolation that members of our elderly population experience. Such targeted spending must be underpinned by a willingness to support people in our most deprived areas to tackle the prominent and divisive health inequalities that exist in Scotland.

Our call for the provision of a dedicated mental health worker in every GP practice and a mental health A and E department in every health board so that patients can be fast-tracked should not be seen as controversial. The minister should get behind some of the suggestions that have been made.

The crisis in mental health treatment in Scotland is concerning and damaging. Time and again, it is our most vulnerable who are let down by the Scottish Government. It knows—as, I am sure, do SNP back benchers—that its performance in this area has been unacceptable. We must be honest and look to shift in the right direction. More warm words and self-congratulatory comments will not cut it. The mental health crisis demands action, and if the SNP will not deliver, it should step aside, because someone has to.

I thank Evelyn Tweed for bringing this interesting debate to the chamber. I am not putting myself forward as an expert in tonight’s debate and I have tried really hard to listen to all contributions by the members and will endeavour to go back and speak to the Labour group because this seems to be an important issue and we need to push to get it right for people. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, and to make that commitment.

Like many members, I represent a rural region, South Scotland, which has so much beautiful woodland and outdoor space so, even before tonight’s debate, I recognised the issues around ticks and the associated bacterial infection of Lyme disease. We know that the symptoms might not be easily recognised and diagnosed, which means that they can be missed, as Evelyn Tweed said, so I hope that highlighting the issue will ensure that there is better awareness among the population thus reducing the risk of infection. Raising awareness will also help to support NHS staff and the healthcare workforce to recognise the signs and symptoms, which will result in appropriate diagnosis of the condition.

As we have heard, Lyme disease is a bacterial infection that is spread to humans by infected ticks. Many of us who have dogs who enjoy long woodland walks recognise ticks as tiny spider-like creatures that are found in woodland and heath, although they can be found in any area of deep or overgrown vegetation where animals feed. Although reported to be more prevalent in the Highlands of Scotland, we are not just talking about rural areas: woodlands and dense vegetation in urban parks see plenty of wildlife, including the spider-like tick. Members have brought out very well that we are now seeing them in other areas where humans walk.

Ticks feed on the blood of birds and mammals, including humans, and that is, of course, where the problem lies. Ticks bite and those bites could infect us with Lyme disease. A tick bite can only cause Lyme disease in humans if the tick has already bitten an infected animal. Some of the research that I looked at talked about the different ways in which farmers manage their animals nowadays.

Members have mentioned the important information that is needed to recognise the signs and symptoms of tick bites and when people should seek medical advice. I appreciate that there are other matters that I did not go over when researching my speech, around the management of farmlands and the beautiful countryside around us, that are also relevant.

A couple of things struck me as being important to raise with the public and the minister, the first of which is that ticks will bite and feed on people’s dogs and cats, which is relevant in urban areas. They can be on the dog or cat for a few days before dropping off and they can pass diseases, including Lyme disease, on to the pet. During my research for tonight’s debate, I noticed information about the signs and symptoms in dogs and cats, and I believe that the pet-loving Scottish public would wish to know some of them, especially as they are also relevant in the prevention of tick transfer to humans.

My second point is about workplace safety, which Rachael Hamilton raised. Scottish Woodlands has Lyme Disease UK as its charity this year because it is aware that its staff could be affected by Lyme disease and it is keen to see further research into Lyme disease.

In the interests of time, I will move on. In my speech, I had planned to talk about some things that other members have talked about—the sensible things that people can do—but it is really important that the minister feeds back to us on the fact that we need to raise public awareness of the reasonable and easy things that people can do and how we manage the issue in the countryside. I thank the Presiding Officer and all the members who spoke tonight.

I want to be clear on some of the points that you have made, minister. From parliamentary questions on outpatient appointments, we know that the median waiting time between referral and appointment at the complex mesh surgical service in Glasgow is 236 days and that the longest waiting time is 448 days. I just want clarity on exactly how you have been approaching that issue with the health board. Those waiting times are absolutely unacceptable, and, as members have indicated, this is about a longstanding commitment to women. What discussion have you had with the health board about that? What reassurances do you have for those women that we will get appointment times closer to referral times?