Seòmar agus comataidhean

The witnesses have already touched on some of the stuff that I was going to ask about the financial memorandum, but I would like to go back to it. As we know from written evidence, although there are some areas where we know that there will be increased costs, there could be benefits further along the line by way of costs. Could the witnesses speak a little bit about whether they think there is clarity in the bill about what additional spending there will be and what we might see in the future, in terms of spending? Is there a balance that could work?

That was helpful.

We are talking not just about financial benefits. Do you, or any of the witnesses, see the bill being helpful to other parts of the system, such as policing, healthcare or accident and emergency? Is there anything in the bill that would be beneficial to those services?

I take your point.

If there is to be additional funding in the context of the bill, where would you target that to get some of the benefits that you talk about?

Although endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in the United Kingdom, the level of data collection on it by health boards is extremely limited. Does the Government recognise that capturing more data on general practitioner referrals for endometriosis and waiting times for consultation would create greater transparency about how long it is taking to diagnose and treat endometriosis?

I also thank the cabinet secretary for his answers.

Last year, a report on neonatal deaths recommended the review of maternity units to help to assess how care for mothers and babies can be improved. As the cabinet secretary said, following that, it was recommended that Healthcare Improvement Scotland carry out inspections of maternity units from January 2025 in order to provide assurances on the care that women and babies can expect to receive. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update to the Parliament on the progress that has been made on those inspections?

I thank Tess White for bringing the debate to the chamber. I welcome the speeches by members who have already spoken on this really important matter. I will make a short contribution, following on from questions that I have asked the cabinet secretary and the minister about the provision of single-sex toilets.

For context, as others have said, single-sex spaces that are based on biological sex are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Women and girls have a right to feel safe in our public buildings such as schools and hospitals. They are often in those places when they are at their most vulnerable and, further, they require to attend those places, so Government has a responsibility to ensure that those places are safe and comply with the law.

Recently, we have heard about patients having to wait in corridors and the strain that the NHS is under. Given that, we can see why people are asking the Government to engage with them in light of the “How safe are our Scottish hospitals?” report.

We can all agree that the report’s findings are particularly worrying. For 20 years, the Scottish Government, first under Scottish Labour and now under the SNP, has required health boards to eliminate mixed-sex accommodations in hospitals. However, as my colleague Jackie Baillie indicated, at the moment, we think that only two health boards comply with that: NHS Dumfries and Galloway and NHS Orkney. That is unacceptable, and I believe that the Government must take some responsibility for it. I agree with my colleague Claire Baker and others who have said that the Government needs to have more engagement with us on those matters so that we can get the information that is required.

To go back to the questions that I asked the cabinet secretary and the minister, the issue is about engagement. I asked three separate questions—one in the chamber, to the cabinet secretary, and two written questions—on the provision of single-sex toilets. However, I feel that the Government was unable to give me full answers about the way in which it is ensuring that the laws are being applied in Scotland, and I feel that it is important for the Government to take responsibility in that regard.

The cabinet secretary’s response to the question that I asked in the chamber was:

“I say once again that those regulations are also included in the Government’s belief that all public bodies should fulfil their obligations under all pieces of legislation with reference to this issue.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; c 15.]

If the cabinet secretary is saying that that is the Government’s belief, I think that, possibly, the Government should be doing more.

I will end by asking the minister whether the Government can give us assurance that it will take some responsibility and look to assess the current situation in our NHS and other organisations, particularly ones to which the Government provides public funds. Gathering that information should not be difficult, but I think that it is essential.

I will touch on training and continuous professional development.

Dr Williams, if the bill were to be passed, would there be training requirements to support people in respect of the right to a second opinion? Is there scope for that?

That is helpful, thank you.

That is helpful. I am hearing that you feel that people across the professions engage with the process, which is good for us to hear.

Lyndsey, do you have a sense of whether the bill would build on people’s lived and living experience of how health professionals work on treatment determination for people with drug and alcohol misuse issues?

Great. Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment on training?