Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, thank Sue Webber for bringing this topical debate to the chamber.

The pandemic has certainly brought the importance of medical research for our health and wellbeing to our attention. In Scotland, the life sciences community mobilised and responded rapidly to the challenges that arose from Covid-19. From research, drug discovery and manufacturing to clinical trials for our vaccines, Scotland is considered a world leader in medical research and we must maintain this proud legacy across the private, public and charity sectors. The health benefits are clear. Medical research continues to develop and make life-changing differences to patients. Importantly, for so many people who are living with long-term conditions, research provides hope for the future that there will be less pain, that they will get better treatments and that they will have a little bit more control over their lives.

The focus of today’s motion is research charities, which are in a unique position to leverage the power of grass-roots movements. Generous public donations and specialist expertise from the industry can be complementary, and drawing on the lived experience of patients and families is key to that.

Paul McLennan talked about how the British Heart Foundation has raised so much in funds through its stores. It brought to mind a wee meeting that I had with a young man called Mohamad, who won an award for his volunteering. He came to this country as a refugee and decided to volunteer at the British Heart Foundation, and he was hoping to become a doctor in the future. That was a couple of years ago now. He had so much warmth and dedication, and volunteering helped him to learn the language. There are lots of little ripples that come out from these charities. They make a real difference to our communities.

The economic value of medical charity research in Scotland is clear, but it is not without its challenges. As the motion highlights, medical charity research in Scotland supports a lot of local jobs and generates wider investment, with direct employment at universities and in medical industries but also that spillover effect that supports a wide variety of jobs right across Scotland, too. Many of those jobs are highly skilled and well-paid positions within world-leading institutions. The medical research sector is one of the most effective in Scotland in driving economic growth and employment and it has attracted talent from all over the globe.

However, research charities face quite serious issues in 2022. The pandemic has put enormous financial pressure on individuals and organisations; that is not going away any time soon given that the current cost of living crisis looks set to worsen. Medical research funding by charities is estimated at around 46 per cent of all third sector and public funding, making this income integral to Scotland’s medical research industry. The long-term consequences of charity funding reductions in Scotland are likely to include shortages of highly skilled medical researchers and stagnation in treatment development. It also has the potential to negatively impact on Scotland’s reputation as a world leader in research.

In response, some charities have called on the Scottish Government to increase investment in third-sector medical research by a further £37 million. However, Scotland does not have the same borrowing powers as Westminster. Making a comparison between the UK Government’s spending per head of population of England with that of Scotland seems to be a wee bit unfair, given that the Scottish Government’s hands are tied, fiscally speaking.

Where would that additional investment come from? The Scottish Government is already doing so much to mitigate some of the damaging policies, including the bedroom tax, that have come out of Westminster, and is looking to increase child support. While we do not have the freedom to borrow and make long-term investments in our people’s health and wellbeing, our economic options remain limited.

We need to listen to charities to understand the challenges that they are facing and make sure that we are doing everything that we can to support their ambitious work, thereby ensuring that Scotland remains a world leader in research and development. Within its budget, the Scottish Government has already demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that researchers have access to the infrastructure, training and career development opportunities that they need to succeed and to work with partners. The work to create an attractive environment for students to carry out their research is on-going. I agree that we must, moving forward, work collaboratively with the medical research charity sector.

In reality, only with the power of independence will Scotland be able to properly address the challenges ahead. We need that to happen in order to enhance our economy and improve our nation’s health.

That is great. Thank you. We all have an issue with thinking of young people.

What progress has been made in ensuring that students’ voices are listened to? How do students influence the sector’s future priorities? Is the drive towards net zero and the need to prioritise green skills for the future a priority for students and the sector?

I will direct the question at Nora Senior. We are talking about student experiences, so I feel that my question will fit in well, here. We have achieved the access target of 16 per cent of students coming from the most deprived areas, but what progress has been made in improving access for people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, and those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds?

Do you have any recommendations on how that could best be taken forward?

I am interested in your mention of the impact of shame and guilt on people’s ability to participate in public life and the huge impact that that has on mental health, which will be a massive issue in our recovery.

Back in January, Mary Glasgow spoke about how brutal and unfair the cut in universal credit was and how it had a huge impact on children and families, not only practically and financially but emotionally. She said that that sent a message about society’s view of people’s needs and created shame and guilt. Often, the media do not help with that perception.

Notwithstanding all the measures that we bring in to address poverty, are there other things that we can do to help people to feel respected and valued, and to remove the shame and guilt that people find so isolating and that have such a bad impact on their mental health?

I have a question for Gill Bhatti on employability. There are specific barriers in relation to neurodiversity and a lot of anxiety and mental health issues are prevalent in the neurodiverse group, too. Quite often, the job interview process screens out neurodiverse people because of the eye contact and social communication skills that are looked for. How is that being monitored? What is the evidence actually saying? What steps are being taken to address that gap?

Danny Boyle, I heard from a patient who had requested access to her medical records and found that many of the medical professionals she had been in touch with had recorded her under different ethnic backgrounds—rather than asking her directly, they had made a decision themselves. Further, assumptions were also made around her diet, for example, because of her ethnicity, but they were not correct. Is that something that is an issue that you are aware of? Is it quite common? Obviously, it has implications for the data that we have. How much of a role does that issue play?

Apologies. My specific question was about the national health service and the series of different health professionals and consultants recording different information. How much of an issue is that? Is that being looked at?

[Inaudible.]—national health service—

Before I ask my questions, I want to say to Dr Jackson that I am really interested in the development of the national oversight observatory and repository for Scotland, and that it would be great to hear more about that come May next year, when we have more information about it.

My first question is for Claire Sweeney. You talked about linking spending to outcomes, and the importance of community planning partnerships. Are there specific people who should be on community planning partnerships? Are there people who are not on them but should be? Are there links that the community planning partnerships should be making? I know that there is variation across local authorities when it comes to who sits on those partnerships.

As a wee aside, you mentioned measuring the link between spending and outcomes. Does that sometimes get in the way when things are difficult to measure? Does it mean that the focus is not applied in the right way?