Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. [Inaudible.]—I typed R in the chat function but no one has come back to me. I have a terrible connection.

I thank the minister for that news, which is most welcome. Will that provision include the considerable number of other nationals who have been displaced by the conflict in Ukraine?

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate so far for their very important and engaging contributions.

I must, however, note my disappointment that we have not discussed long Covid, as was planned. I believe that that debate is of the utmost importance and that it needs to take place soon. Tens of thousands of people across Scotland are believed to be suffering from it, so we must speak about it in the chamber. I heard, obviously, what the cabinet secretary has said, but I do not think that the Government has given us an adequate reason why the subject of the debate was changed. That should be noted by Parliament.

I return to the important issue of antimicrobial resistance. In closing the debate, I will reiterate some of the important points that have been made, and sum up my party’s view on this important issue for the future of the country.

My colleague Jackie Baillie and Emma Roddick mentioned that there is some very good news around. It is most welcome to realise that there is reduction in use in many places and, of course, that we are managing to prevent many more infections. Emma Roddick gave an excellent speech on the need to look at prevention first and to make sure that we have the right messaging and training in place to do that. I thank her for her speech, which I thought was excellent.

Sandesh Gulhane was the first to give us some of the history of antibiotics; many other members also mentioned it. His comment about antibiotics being a “game changer” is very important. That fact is why we have to take this issue very seriously. The number of deaths that would be associated with the loss of antibiotics’ function would be, as many members have mentioned, a dreadful step backwards. TB in particular was given as an example of increased infections, and a disease for which we are unlikely to meet our global targets unless we really do something about it.

As a number of my colleagues have remarked, Scottish Labour very much welcomes the efforts to address the risks of antimicrobial resistance—in Scotland and around the world. It is important that we recognise that any attempt to do that must take place on a UK-wide basis and, indeed, globally.

The rapid development of the Covid vaccine was a great example of just how much can be done, in record time, when nations work together with a common purpose. That is the attitude that we should move forward with.

As we all know, any progress in healthcare begins with well-funded and effective research; antimicrobial resistance is no different. Ensuring that there is long-term support for that research is a vital step that we must take in order to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics and other key medicines for years to come. The Scottish Government should be doing all that it can to support the many universities across Scotland that are doing that work, so that we can play our part in the promising international work on antimicrobial resistance. I am afraid that, at the moment, that support is not as good as it could be.

Unfortunately, Scotland trails behind England in terms of funding, and is devoting a third less per head of the population to clinical research of that kind. The British Heart Foundation estimates that without charitable funding the Government and other public bodies would need to increase direct funding by 73 per cent to make up for that shortfall. That does not sound to me as though the matter is a priority for the Government. That needs to change. If we want to be world leading, we have to put in the funds to achieve that.

It is with that in mind that my party is calling for the Scottish Funding Council to be tasked with a review of the domestic and global funding streams that are available to Scottish universities and research groups, so that we can effectively contribute to the global research efforts into antimicrobial resistance, and of the avenues that are available throughout the UK and in international research partnerships.

As we have heard from other members, effective prescribing also has a role to play in preventing the rise of antimicrobial resistance, but the report from the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on its inquiry into the supply and demand of medicines across NHS Scotland last year was very critical of the progress that the Government has made in improving prescribing practices in Scotland. In particular, the committee was very critical of the inability of the NHS in Scotland to collect data on the outcomes of medicine use in patients, which will make it much harder to understand antimicrobial resistance better.

Prescribing in primary care makes up the bulk of our NHS medicines spend, despite there being ineffective monitoring of those medicines when the medicines reviews are carried out with patients. Again, that does not sound like the kind of foundation that we want if we are to push ahead with tackling antimicrobial resistance. As the cabinet secretary said, those things have to change. My party wants to fully support efforts to do that.

I reiterate that although the debate has been useful—I have learned a lot and some very important points have been made—it is disappointing that after months of evading the question of support for long Covid patients, the Government still has no answer or solution in place that could give thousands of people some peace of mind. The habit that has been developed of kicking the can down the road and hiding behind unpublished reports is not a healthy one. It really is time that we start to reconsider the way in which we do business, so that we discuss in the chamber the true priorities of the people, not simply what suits the Government at a particular moment.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to offer home fee status to Ukrainian refugees in Scotland, or those displaced following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (S6O-00977)

I thank Joe FitzPatrick for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

I must start by reiterating the appalling figures found by The Press and Journal and The Courier showing that 70 per cent of female respondents to the survey had experienced discrimination in football, and that 60 per cent had experienced sexism. In both cases, that is quite a clear majority and it shows that discriminatory behaviour towards women in football remains prominent in modern day Scotland.

We cannot and must not stand by and accept that. We cannot let sexism and discrimination pass as acceptable because it is said in the context of football. We must call it out for what it is: discrimination against women in a male-dominated field.

The recent progress of women’s football is down to the players, their families, coaches, supporters and others who have worked so incredibly hard to obtain for women’s football the respect and attention that it deserves, and which other members have mentioned this evening. Indeed, next season, the Scottish Women’s Premier League 1 comes under the responsibilities of the Scottish Professional Football League, which is an important step for clubs and players alike.

The standard of women’s football in Scotland is high, with clubs such as Glasgow City Football Club attracting international attention in the latter stages of the Championship League, and Scotland’s national team, led by Shelley Kerr, qualifying for its first ever FIFA women’s world cup, and performing so impressively on the biggest stage of them all.

That shows the high level of performance, talent and dedication that has brought the women’s game in Scotland to where it is today. To ensure that the game continues to develop, we must do all that we can to reduce the number of people who are experiencing discrimination and sexism in the sport. We must all do better. However, that starts not just by increasing the representation of women on the field of play but also in the dugout, the stand, the boardroom and refereeing, as has been mentioned by other members. Those are all parts of the game in which women remain a very small minority.

Men absolutely do have a role to play as coaches and referees in women’s football, but we should seek to increase the number of women who hold such roles in years to come.

At grassroots level, we see clubs up and down the country giving women and girls the opportunity to play. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Nithsdale Wanderers Football Club to see the excellent work that it is doing to promote the women’s game in the south of Scotland. I know that such work is being replicated by communities across Scotland.

As the motion states, 86 per cent of respondents think that increasing media coverage of women’s football could attract more people to the sport, but it is clubs like Nithsdale Wanderers and others where most will start their careers before going on to reach the heights of the elite divisions. For many, it need not be about reaching those high levels in the game. As with all sports, football brings with it significant physical and mental health benefits before all else and our first focus should be on improving the mental health of the population by encouraging girls and women to get involved in competitive yet fair team sport. Time and time again, we have been made aware of the positive impact that such involvement can have on a person.

Sexism has no place in any sport. It has no place in football. It is her game too. The findings of the investigation referenced in the motion are a stark reminder that, despite the progress that we have seen, we still have a long way to go. The public, football authorities, the media and the Parliament have a role to play in kicking sexism out of football once and for all.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I thank the member for bringing this important debate to the chamber. We will always be on the side of women in this fight.

As quite a new committee member, I am finding that it is taking a while to process all the information. I am quite interested in issues around health inequalities and life expectancy, but I would say that we have known about all these things for some time now. How often have we tried to pull together this kind of data, and, if we have tried to do that in the past, what barriers have we come up against?

With regard to making this particular transition, we have talked about who is responsible in health and social care services, but do we need leadership at Government level to really push for this to happen?

I begin by giving special thanks to my party colleague Richard Leonard, who has gone above and beyond to keep the need for a bill of this sort in the public eye and to achieve historic justice for the miners. Despite their vast contribution to the culture and economy of this country, they remain underappreciated and in many cases criminalised simply for standing up for their right to a livelihood. I also bring solidarity from Pam Duncan-Glancy, who hoped to close the debate for us but is isolating.

What happened to the miners must never happen again, but I fear, given the abominable treatment of P&O workers in recent weeks, that we are only stepping backwards as a country on labour relations, which is all the more reason to set a precedent with the bill.

The legacy of the miners strike and the way that workers and their families were treated lives long in the memories of many people in my home region of Ayrshire, as other members have mentioned in relation to their regions. It is simply not possible to grow up here without knowing about how those communities were treated and the painful experiences that they suffered. That is true of my generation, who saw it at first hand, and of the young people growing up today.

It is important to remember that the strike and the movement affected many parts of the UK, and the solidarity that was shared among those communities from South Yorkshire to Fife remains to this day. I assure members that taking this step to recognise that injustice will be well received in many parts of this island. For as long as the prolonged injustice remains in place, I will see it as a key part of my responsibility to ensure that it is addressed. As such, although in general my party and I agree with the principles of the bill, there is still a lot missing and a lot of work to be done.

Why does the bill not cover those who stood in solidarity with the miners? They should be treated with respect and admiration for what they did for their communities; they should not simply be written out of history. Further, and perhaps most important of all, why does the bill not include a provision for compensation? Surely, that is basic common sense. It was bad enough that those workers had their jobs torn away from them, but to be locked up for it and receive nothing in return is truly unacceptable.

I applaud the fact that the Scottish Government is finally willing to take the credit for pardoning the miners, but it should be equally prepared to make that clear through adequate compensation, as any other victim might expect. The excuse that the Parliament did not exist at the time cannot be countenanced; that is a cheap get-out and, if Scotland is truly to set an example for the UK and beyond, here is a perfect opportunity for it to do so. As the bill progresses, my party will demand that its scope is widened to include all the aforementioned.

An apology without serious accountability and compensation is not worthy of the name. The Parliament must support an automatic pardon. That is the decent and human thing to do, and I believe that the public expects no less.

I close by reiterating that Scottish Labour whole-heartedly supports many of the principles of the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill; however, our work has just begun. The bill should be introduced as a testament to all those who have fought the historical injustice that was committed during the strike—not just so that they can begin to get the justice that they deserve but as a marker to future generations that we will not again allow such a thing to happen in our name.

However, as I have said, the bill as it stands does not go far enough. Action is required to redress the sins of the past, and serious compensation is needed. Those unfair convictions have cost people in so many ways. Although money cannot entirely salve the wounds, it would go some way towards qualifying the reality of the pain that was felt by so many in those days. It is the least that we in this Parliament can do.

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber and I thank members for the contributions so far. We can see how important these debates are, as Evelyn Tweed has just said, in allowing us to talk about these issues in a public forum. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I recognise the importance of ovarian cancer awareness month, which is marked in March. This is a cancer that impacts over 600 people in Scotland every year and this is an important debate in which we seek to raise awareness about it.

I would highlight the symptoms again, but I think that they have been covered very well by the previous speakers. The key fact is that it is important that women go and seek help should they have any of those symptoms and not feel that they are bothering any of the medics or the nursing staff. I am sure that those staff would rather that women came forward and made sure that they were getting themselves checked.

As the motion states, the symptoms usually occur frequently, which is defined as happening more than 12 times a month. It is important that women come forward. The symptoms of ovarian cancer are very common and can be caused by many conditions, but it is important to have them checked out by a GP because, as we have learned more and more in recent years, the earlier an individual has cancer of any sort diagnosed, the more likely they are to be treated and to recover.

As is mentioned in the motion, despite significant research efforts and trials, there is currently no screening available for ovarian cancer. I was very interested in the contributions in the debate so far, because I am not overly familiar with that issue, and I certainly will seek to find out a lot more about the points that Marie McNair and others made.

To take more preventative measures, obtain quicker rates of detection and better levels of treatment, it is crucial that we invest further in research, because knowledge is power. The more we can understand, the better chance we have of achieving Ovarian Cancer Action’s aims of making this a more survivable cancer. That is also why raising public awareness is so important. When regular screening services do not exist as they do with other potential cancers, it is vital that members of the public are encouraged to be conscientious in checking for symptoms and to act accordingly and promptly to ensure that they are working in their own best interests.

According to Ovarian Cancer Action,

“Although five-year survival rates for ovarian cancer are improving, other cancers, such as breast cancer, had better survival rates two generations ago than ovarian cancer does today.”

I thought that that was quite striking. This should be a concern to us all. It is a staggering truth and it shows that, although we have made progress, there is still a long way to go to ensure that there is better treatment—ideally, personalised treatment—and higher survival rates for women.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I again recognise the significance of ovarian cancer awareness month and stress the importance of not stopping our efforts to raise awareness, as we do so often in the chamber, but to regularly bring to the attention of our constituents the symptoms of the illnesses and the fact that they are treatable with early detection. Progress has been made, which is testament to the work of campaigners and organisers who have done a significant amount of work to raise awareness of ovarian cancer, but we must not stop. We must keep making more progress, invest more in research and deliver early diagnosis and improved treatment. I thank everyone for their contributions. Thank you very much.

We know that there are already significant pressures on the existing workforces in rural health boards, including NHS Grampian, and that the board is struggling with staff recruitment and retention. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what plans he has to remedy existing staffing difficulties? Why should Parliament trust that the Government has the plans in place to ensure that its actions on workforce-related recommendations will have an effective and lasting impact and will deliver for the services and those who rely on them?