Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary and the members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for their work in introducing the bill. More than anyone, though, I thank the women who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. It is no exaggeration to say that the bravery that they have shown has been inspiring.

Prior to my election, I followed the issue closely, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, and I listened with concern, disbelief and anger to the accounts of those women who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of transvaginal mesh implants. I read testimonies from the women who informed Baroness Cumberlege’s inquiry, and I found their accounts striking. They highlighted wider issues in how patients are communicated with, such as

“‘No-one is listening’—The patient voice dismissed”

and

“‘I was never told’—the failure of informed consent”.

It is therefore important to acknowledge the invaluable work of advocacy groups such as the Scottish Mesh Survivors group and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland for their role in progressing the issue. The reports that were published by the alliance in 2019 and 2021 provided a platform for mesh survivors to collate their lived experiences and present their irrefutable findings. It is safe to say that their voice is heard loud and clear in this chamber. Indeed, listening to mesh survivors is central to today’s bill.

It has taken too long to get here, but I am pleased that the steps that have been taken to reach this point have resulted in the number of mesh surgeries in Scotland dropping from 2,267 in 2009 to the current number—no further vaginal mesh surgeries have taken place in Scotland since 2018. The Scottish Government is now seeking to continue its work in redressing the wrongs that have been suffered and rebuilding the trust that has understandably been lost.

I am thankful that today’s debate moves the conversation forward again. It is now focused on how best to expedite satisfactory resolutions for those women who are still suffering the consequences of treatment, whether they be physical or financial.

The costs in each case are substantial: they are estimated to be between £16,000 and £23,000. Those are significant sums by anyone’s standards, let alone for the women, many of whom could not afford that amount but, in desperation, absorbed a heavy financial burden in the hope of alleviating the daily agony that they endured. The bill not only aims to assist the women who still require corrective surgery to receive it in a manner with which they are comfortable; it allows for reparations, which is something that transcends political affiliation. I welcome the cross-party support for the bill.

I welcome the bill at stage 1 and the Scottish Government’s continued commitment to ensuring that every woman in need of corrective surgery due to transvaginal mesh receives it from a surgeon in whom they have full confidence. I also welcome the commitment to removing the financial burden that so many women who merely sought to take back control of their lives have been left with.

I was shocked to hear the comments of the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, that Scotland has not played its part in asylum dispersal, when this country has a proud record of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Home Secretary must apologise for that misleading claim? Does the cabinet secretary also believe that asylum dispersal involving both children and adults must be done in a humane and dignified way and with the proper funding from the Home Office to provide the vital support that people need?

What progress has already been made in tackling the poverty-related attainment gap? What lessons have been learned from the first iteration of the Scottish attainment challenge?

Having met representatives from Malawi in Kelvin’s Woodlands community garden during COP26, I was concerned to learn of the challenges that they face at the hands of climate change, which, in turn, have impacted on their ability to respond to Covid. Following on from the Scottish Government’s £2 million commitment to UNICEF, will the minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work to assist in the fight against Covid in Malawi and wider Africa?

To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to the impact on the food and drink supply chain, what its response is to a recent survey of 1,000 United Kingdom businesses by Gallagher, which reportedly found that many businesses have been affected by a shortage of staff because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact of Brexit regulations. (S6O-00390)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government anticipates the lasting impact of COP26 will be for the people of Glasgow and Scotland. (S6F-00470)

In the light of that research, does the cabinet secretary share my view that the pursuit of a hard Brexit, which has been forced on Scotland at the height of an unprecedented public health crisis, amounts to nothing less than an act of governmental vandalism that put ideology ahead of the needs of our economy?

For many countries in the global south, the impacts of climate change are already being felt. We have a moral responsibility to acknowledge that and to take action. The Scottish Government has led the way by providing £2 million of funding for loss and damage. That commitment has been widely welcomed, including by the secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, but we cannot act alone. How will the Scottish Government continue to push for climate justice globally post-COP26?

I would like Stephen McGhee to come in. I want to focus on support for families. Let us say that a digital device is provided to a household for educational purposes and to improve digital literacy, which Linda O’Neill mentioned. The family has to get involved in order to achieve that, does it not? How can we best support the entire family—in supporting the child—and improve their digital literacy skills in order to gain maximum benefit from digital devices?

That is a fair point. I would not dismiss any of that. I acknowledge the importance of considering the whole child and taking a holistic approach, notwithstanding the fact that my line of questioning focused on digital provision.