Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am interested in the link with GPs, which is so important because GPs are maybe the first port of call. Women have found the matter quite difficult, for two reasons. First, we know that GPs are under enormous stress, so I am interested to know what is out there to help GPs around transvaginal mesh issues.

Secondly, an important point about medical records was raised in our previous evidence session: why are GPs unable to easily ascertain whether women have had mesh implanted? Do we have an understanding of how we might resolve that issue? Some of the women have reported that they went to their GP with the symptom and that either the GP was unaware of it or the diagnosis was delayed. Do GPs get good information about the symptoms so that women can get a diagnosis and a referral?

We have heard about the need to learn lessons and the need to have easy-to-access registry systems for other devices, such as hernia mesh. Has the Government considered that as a way of giving GPs easy access to information? Other people have raised that issue with us in the past.

I suppose that people will want to hear about very practical things. Will there be any extra clinic times? Will there be extra resources? Will there be more nurses to give out that kind of advice? You might not be able to give answers to those questions now, but it would be helpful for the committee to know those things for the women.

That would be helpful.

It is concerning that we have another hospital with serious health and safety issues. An inquiry is currently investigating the construction of Scottish hospitals including the Scottish Government’s flagship hospital, the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.

Patients and staff will rightly be outraged by the latest development in NHS Grampian. What discussions, if any, have been had with trade union colleagues to ensure that the workforce has confidence in the safety of the hospital that it will be expected to work in?

Before I begin, I put on record my party’s gratitude to everyone who played any role at all in the long and on-going fight against Covid and, in particular, those front-line health and care workers who risked their lives and the welfare of their families to keep as many of us as safe as possible.

That, of course, includes those who worked for unending hours to push through the vaccination programme that has successfully brought us to a point where we can proudly say that we can begin to see an end to lives being lost from that terrible disease. Those vaccinators and everyone involved in the significant effort that went along with it really are modern-day heroes and we owe it to them to say so as much as we can.

I hope that, in time, Scotland will properly commemorate the thousands of people who risked so much to help us, taking into account the fact that many of them still work in our NHS and social care sector and that they currently feel that they are underpaid and undervalued by Governments. Let us show true gratitude and address that disparity, too, during this session of Parliament.

Let me return to the wider fight against Covid-19. No one can doubt that Governments across the world were wholly unprepared for a pandemic as far reaching and lethal as Covid-19, but it is our responsibility to learn from it to best prepare ourselves for the pandemics to come, as well as to properly manage the continuing damage and potential threat from new Covid strains and long Covid.

That preparation demands that we are honest about the failures that happened. Many people could not get a vaccination appointment anywhere near where they lived, and we have heard of children being given the wrong dosage altogether. Of course, the public expect that in such an unprecedented event, there will be errors, but it is clear that many of those things were avoidable with better planning. It is important that the Government reflects on those matters. I am glad that, since that time, there seems to have been an effort to rectify some of the issues and look at some of the problems.

Despite that, we are currently seeing a concerning number of over-75s failing to get their spring booster jab and a general lack of understanding among the population about where the vaccination programme will go next. Indeed, throughout the vaccination process, there were particular groups that had a much lower uptake of the vaccine than others. Properly understanding the economic, social and cultural reasons behind that is key to ensuring that we get it right immediately in the future. However, I must press the point that, in order to address the issues for good, they have to be recognised as failings first, not swept under the carpet. We need to be honest about what happened and what is happening.

I thank my colleague for that intervention. That is absolutely part of the point that I am making. We must not sweep things under the carpet and we must be honest.

Perhaps larger than all of that, however, is the continuing failure to properly address the situation faced by those who are suffering from long Covid. We believe that there are as many as 172,000 people across Scotland suffering from that debilitating condition, with a significant number unable to work because of it. Many of those people continue to report that they are victims of a postcode lottery for treatment and medication—a completely unacceptable situation for anyone in a country as wealthy as ours. We also know that this Government has not matched the support that has been provided in England and Wales to those who are suffering from the condition—a fact that I find incredible and one that should be more widely known and spoken about.

To avoid errors like that, we must properly process and understand the findings of the Covid inquiry when they arrive, not cower away. When necessary action requires to be taken, we must address it. We must prepare for a future in which a pandemic could plausibly happen again. In order to do that, my party is calling on the Scottish Government to meet people who are suffering from long Covid and experts in the field to discuss the long-term funding that is needed to treat the condition and to ensure that the most vulnerable people in society can access antiviral medications and prophylaxis.

In the long term, our Government must work cohesively with scientists, researchers, stakeholders and Governments across the world to utilise the most up-to-date and cutting-edge discoveries in immunology, epidemiology and wider healthcare. Scotland should be at the forefront of that charge. With its world-leading academic institutions and pharmaceutical research, it can play that role decisively. We should not shy away from celebrating the success of industry and workers across the UK and in Scotland when doing so. After all, investment is key to all of this.

As we know, co-operation across the United Kingdom was exemplary during the pandemic. It acted as a fine testament to what can be achieved when Governments work together sensibly and in the best interests of the many. For many people across Scotland, there was a great sense of solidarity and collective fortitude as the pandemic rolled out from knowing that families in Aberdeen and Southampton alike were going through such an awful situation and, sadly, having first-hand experience of losing loved ones, while fighting it together on a shared footing. I know that that gave me strength during the pandemic and, if it ever happens again, I feel confident that, as the United Kingdom, we are ready to tackle it once more while thinking of others across the nation.

In conclusion, the development and the delivery of vaccines were the jewels in the crown of Scotland’s efforts to fight Covid. We can only be thankful that so many hard-working and committed individuals took up the fight without fear and got the job done. I dread to think where we would have been without them.

I move amendment S6M-08948.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises the importance of the cooperation and pooling of resources by the four nations in the procurement and roll-out of vaccines; accepts that lessons must be learned from the COVID-19 vaccination programme, with concerning evidence of lower vaccine uptake in minority ethnic groups, those living in the most deprived areas, younger people and pregnant women; considers that the Scottish Government’s support for those with long COVID and those formerly on the Highest Risk List is inadequate, and calls on the Scottish Government to meet with people with long COVID and experts to discuss the long-term funding needed to treat this condition, and ensure that the most vulnerable in society can access antiviral medicines and prophylaxis.”

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.