Chamber and committees

I begin by recognising the many women and men who have come forward to discuss deeply personal accounts of the life-changing and lifelong consequences that mesh surgery can cause. Reliving that trauma must be difficult, but it gives MSPs the opportunity to pause, reflect and review treatments that are offered to people across Scotland. I also recognise those who have campaigned vigorously to ensure that any procedure involving mesh is low risk and appropriate.

In all our considerations of the use of such devices, people’s health, safety and wellbeing must be our first concern. The petition that we are debating, if approved by this Parliament, would suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices. I have some sympathy towards those who submitted the petition to the petitions committee, given the serious implications that the use of transvaginal mesh has had for many women globally.

Mesh was previously used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women. However, in 2014, a petition was submitted on behalf of the Scottish Mesh Survivors’ hear our voice campaign. We have all heard from women who have bravely told their harrowing stories about how they were told that they were just experiencing “women’s problems” and that there was nothing seriously wrong. Taking the time to read some of their accounts helped me to understand the distrust that women felt towards the Government and our NHS for not being believed.

It was right that the 2017 Scottish independent review of transvaginal mesh implants recommended stopping the surgery after concerns were raised by women who suffered debilitating, severe and painful consequences. Thankfully, there are now specialised services in Scotland for women who have experienced complications from mesh implant surgery, and the Scottish Government officially signed a contract that allows women to have painful mesh implants removed by a specialist surgeon in the United States free of charge. The deal allows NHS patients in Scotland to travel to Dr Veronikis’s clinic in Missouri for transvaginal mesh removal surgery. Earlier this year, a contract was also agreed with Spire Healthcare, where Professor Hashim Hashim operates, which gave women the option to go to Bristol for the surgery.

However, the points that Jackie Baillie raised in her speech were concerning, and I will not be the only MSP in the chamber today who wishes that the Government had acted sooner and more efficiently to support women who have had such surgery.

One takeaway from the whole debacle was that MSPs from across the chamber rallied together to ensure that mesh survivors not only had a clear route to treatment but were compensated if they had spent thousands of pounds of their own money to have their implants removed.

As my colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhane and others have articulated, there is more than one type of surgical mesh. With other kinds of mesh, such as that used for hernia, there appears to be evidence of issues arising that are similar to those that arose in relation to the use of transvaginal mesh. Potential complications include chronic pain, bowel obstruction, hernia recurrence and infection.

Given that those concerns have been raised, the need for data and evidence is essential when investigating the link between cause and treatment. For example, only a tiny percentage of hernia repairs involving mesh has resulted in mesh having to be removed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found that post-operative complications from mesh were rare, so we need to be careful when looking at the use of mesh and any side-effects of having such surgery.

It is groundhog day. We have heard yet another statement in which the data is stacked against the Government, which has no meaningful solutions for improving education and the life chances of all children and young people. Questions must be asked about Scottish education reform funding. Gillian Hamilton, the chief executive of Education Scotland, has warned that it

“does not have capacity and/or capability to carry out this additional, very important work”,

which will have

“a significant detrimental impact on some key policy areas”,

including the Government’s flagship policy to close the

“poverty-related attainment gap”.

How serious is the Scottish Government about education reform?

In 2022, there were more than 350 fewer primary school teachers than there were in 2021, and there were fewer teachers from the teacher induction scheme teaching in their post-probation year than at any time since the scheme began.

Key to restoring our education system to its world-class status is reducing class sizes. Why is the Government cutting teacher numbers when school pupils have faced so much disruption over the past three years?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My laptop froze, so I am unsure whether my vote has been recorded. Can I please confirm whether it has been?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance once more. In the run-up to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, much was made of its proposed family-friendly principles. As it stands, the Parliament has today spent almost 10 hours debating the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Many MSPs, including me, have young families and they will have had to make last-minute arrangements for childcare. If the Parliament is to conduct itself in such a way, Holyrood can no longer define itself as a family-friendly Parliament. My fear, as referenced earlier, is that I will not be the last MSP to state that late-night sittings are incompatible with working here while raising a young family.

Can the Presiding Officer advise whether late-night sittings are now standard, or whether amendments can be voted on over multiple dates, with the final debate taking place in January to better accommodate sitting hours?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am concerned by the scheduling of business in this Parliament. As a new mum, I already struggle to find childcare during regular work hours, let alone until late at night. Last week’s business proposal said that we would be here until 11:30 tonight, so I made the best arrangement I possibly could. Today’s revision could mean that we will be here until late tonight and also tomorrow.

First, in line with my colleague Jeremy Balfour’s point of order, I ask whether any existing parliamentary processes include impact assessments of the effect of the scheduling of business on new parents. I ask that because, at the end of the previous session of Parliament, several members stood down citing the impossibility of working here while raising a young family. I fear that matters are becoming worse.

Secondly, is it your understanding that it would be possible within parliamentary processes for this week’s consideration of stage 3 amendments to have been split into three sessions, with the final debate on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill being moved into the first week of work in January, which currently has a blank business slot on Tuesday 10?

Earlier this year, life as I knew it changed forever when I became a first-time mum. I will never forget the moment that I met my daughter or how she instantly became the most important person to me and my immediate family. It has to be said that being part of the parent club is genuinely one of the best feelings in the world.

I have been so fortunate to be able to spend the last few months learning how to become a mum. As we know, there is no step-by-step manual because every baby has a different personality and milestones, but I am looking to return fully to my MSP role in January 2023.

Before I get into the premise of today’s debate, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their well wishes; my constituents, who have been understanding of my maternity leave; and, of course, my fantastic office team, who have gone above and beyond to keep my office running smoothly.

Every child in Scotland should have the same opportunities in life, regardless of their postcode or family dynamic. As we have heard this afternoon, every MSP in the chamber agrees with that, although there are stark differences in policies and in how we believe Scotland is performing compared with other countries.

My colleague Stephen Kerr correctly outlined the importance of giving every child a golden ticket to a first-class education. He also raised serious concerns about the violence and threats that our teachers face daily in their classrooms. Those concerns were echoed by Murdo Fraser but not by the cabinet secretary until other members prompted her.

When we discuss education issues, it does not help that we have a Scottish Government that refuses to listen to experts, academics, parents and Opposition politicians when they raise genuine concerns about the state of the education system. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that most of my contribution will focus on the Scottish Government’s flagship policy of providing every child in Scotland with 1,140 hours of free childcare. I feel like a broken record when it comes to that policy, but, if I did not have a vested interest in childcare before, I certainly do now.

When the Government introduced the expansion of the existing childcare policy, the SNP said that it would deliver three main benefits. First, children’s development would improve and the poverty-related attainment gap would narrow. Secondly, more parents would have the opportunity to be in work, or to be training or studying. Thirdly, the policy would increase family resilience through the improved health and wellbeing of parents and children.

I will start on a positive note: in principle, 1,140 hours is a good policy. The First Minister hailed it as transformative, and it has the potential to give children the best possible start in life because it removes the financial burden on parents, who often struggle with the cost of childcare. That is especially true for working mums, as many choose to pause or stop their career progression to start a family. I do not believe that, in 2022, a woman should have to choose between her career or having children. The onus is on the Parliament to give them the tools so that they can do both successfully.

As it stands, the early learning and childcare policy is not working. It is my view and, indeed, the view of many in the early years industry that the policy’s aims will never be achieved should the Government continue to ignore the crisis that has emerged in the early learning and childcare sector. It is not enough to simply have a good policy idea without having the willpower and determination to see it through.

As Brian Whittle said, we have an opportunity to reset Scotland’s education system. Since my election to the Scottish Parliament and during my time as a councillor in North Lanarkshire, I have been in direct contact with nurseries in the private, voluntary and independent sector. They have told me on several occasions about the deep-rooted problems with the 1,140 hours policy. Those include the financial inequality that exists between PVI and local authority nurseries; a staffing crisis and the loss of childminders; parents not obtaining their first, second or third choice of nursery setting for their children; and PVI settings closing as people cannot afford to run their business—

Absolutely. I will touch on that point later in my contribution. Levels of bureaucracy are created through the mountains of paperwork, and there are cross-boundary issues due to councils not working collegiately to deliver funded childcare.

I would like to continue. I will take an intervention from the minister later, if that is okay.

What used to be a healthy, competitive market between PVI nurseries and local authorities has now resulted in councils being the kingmaker, leaving many PVI nurseries in a checkmate position. The PVI sector has fought tooth and nail to try to make the rate process fair, but when the funding structure that is set by the Scottish Government and COSLA allows local authorities to pay ELC staff 30 to 50 per cent more than staff in funded PVI settings receive, with 65 per cent of PVI nursery fees being controlled by the 1,140 hours policy, we can see exactly where the problem lies.

The National Day Nurseries Association has said that low or static rates principally mean a real-time cut in funding for settings and threaten the existence of some nurseries.