Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this timely debate. I thank the cabinet secretary for coming to the chamber to report on the work that he has done and I pay tribute on the record to all who have lost their lives or suffered as a result of their service.

Like others, I have family members who have taken part in conflict and died. I also have family members who have campaigned against war. We must always remember that it is politicians who send our armed forces into conflict, and often it is politicians who let them down. As a society, we often fail to meet the duty of care that we owe to veterans.

When I asked veterans what issues they felt the debate needed to focus on, they highlighted the impacts that the Covid-19 pandemic has had, and that the cost of living crisis is having, on many veterans who are struggling. They mentioned issues around care homes and the impacts that rising costs there are having on veterans.

In the past, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on armed forces veterans’ pensions in the House of Commons, I campaigned with veterans for those who had served in the military before 1974. Despite campaigning for many decades, those veterans have still not been awarded an Army pension. That issue and others, such as the need for a triple lock, are obviously reserved matters but, as has already been said, this Parliament has responsibility for many of the issues that impact on veterans’ lives now.

We must recognise that gaps remain in the specialist support that veterans need, whether for their physical health or for their mental health. Support is often not available locally or is not structured in a way that meets veterans’ needs. Many of us have personal experience of witnessing the system failing former members of the armed services, whether those individuals have come back from the Falklands, the Gulf war or more recent conflicts.

We recognise that progress has been made to address veterans’ social and housing needs, and I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s announcement regarding the housing application process, but we know that many people still leave the armed forces and become homeless. The most recent figures show a 24 per cent increase in the number of people registering as homeless after leaving armed forces accommodation between 2020-21 and 2021-22.

In 2020, Poppyscotland, together with the Royal British Legion, published a research report entitled “Making the benefits system fit for Service”. It detailed how the benefits system often fails people who are leaving service. Poppyscotland has called for the establishment of a veterans housing action group, with powers to review challenging cases, to oversee the effective implementation of the veterans housing pathway and to act on the recommendations that it makes.

The Parliament needs to recognise that we have failed our veterans in the past. I am pleased with the way in which the debate has been conducted. It is right that we honour those who have fallen, but we must also remember that, too often, we have failed those who have come home, those who have been left behind—including families—and those who have suffered life-altering injuries. I am pleased to support the motion.

Thank you. I warmly welcome the minister to her new role and associate myself with her comments about the emergency services.

Between 2016 and 2020, there were only four solemn and 16 summary firework convictions, and there were no firework convictions whatever in 2020-21. The way in which the Scottish Government has constructed its proposed licensing scheme makes it even more important that there are convictions. How will the minister ensure that there are convictions arising from this year’s events?

When the Criminal Justice Committee considered the recent fireworks legislation, there was considerable discussion about how people might bypass the licensing system by buying online or on the black market. Will the minister take steps to find out where the fireworks that were misused came from and whether they were bought in a shop or online or obtained elsewhere?

Once there has been a full investigation into the circumstances of this year’s events, will the minister ensure that there is a full report to Parliament?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

In a debate on booking office closures and staffing levels on the railways, the cabinet secretary for transport committed to a review of women’s safety on public transport. Will the cabinet secretary for justice ensure that his department feeds into the review of what measures are needed to deal with antisocial behaviour and violence against women on public transport?

What discussions have there been with domestic abuse specialists about the engagement with women who are being released from custody?

Legal aid budgets were cut by almost half a billion pounds between 2007 and 2019. The Scottish Parliament information centre estimates that the Scottish Government’s framework will mean that, over the next four years, another £12 million of real-terms cuts will be made to legal aid budgets.

The Law Society of Scotland says that the sector is already in crisis. What analysis has the Scottish Government carried out on the impact of cuts to the civil legal aid budget on the most deprived communities? Does the minister accept that access to justice is increasingly available only to the rich?

When it comes to what happens after 31 March, is the minister giving consideration to whether it might be possible to get rent control legislation and a temporary scheme in place more speedily, even if that was done through temporary emergency legislation? Could it be done in months rather than years?

On that point—

Miles Briggs rose—

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate all those who worked so hard to get the legislation on transvaginal mesh. I also congratulate my colleague Daniel Johnson for securing today’s debate.

It is clear from the people who are campaigning on the issue that they feel that they are still not being listened to. In the short time that I have today, I will focus on the concerns of hernia and other mesh survivors who do not currently seem to be covered by the scope of the scheme that is being discussed. Many of those survivors have suffered life-altering conditions. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, who are petitioning Parliament and asking for the suspension of use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices that are being used in Scotland.

It is very much the case that mesh is still being used. I have spoken with women and men who have been affected by the procedure, including a 50-year-old man who had mesh implanted in the right side of his groin in 2013. He is still suffering extreme pain and debilitating conditions as a result of that procedure, including physical conditions that mean that he is unable to carry on with normal ways of living in the way that most of us would expect to do. He hardly sleeps and cannot get medication that alleviates the symptoms. He says that he is also suffering from depression.

My constituent Roseanna Clarkin was aware of mesh before her procedure. Indeed, she had been a campaigner and did not consent to mesh being used. Her understanding was that tissue would be used for the hernia procedure that was carried out on her. Unfortunately, she is not the only example of the medical profession not getting informed consent from patients.

Therefore, there are still many issues that the Parliament needs to discuss in relation to the use of mesh in Scotland. I hope that we will have further debates in Parliament, because many people are calling for suspension of the use of all surgical procedures involving mesh. That is a debate that Parliament must continue to have.

The petitioners are asking for an independent review and for suspension of the use of all mesh and fixation devices. They point to the substantial damages that are being awarded, particularly in the United States of America, to people who have had mesh implanted. They ask for improved patient pathways, with

“specialist surgeons who are aware of complications”

and who know

“how to properly insert mesh”

and remove it when needed. They also want

“a choice of surgeries where natural tissue repair is offered first”

and believe that mesh should not be used until that work has been done. They would like the establishment of a specialist

“mesh centre with more surgeons trained in natural tissue repair.”

In particular, they call for an apology and

“recognition ... from the Scottish Government”

and compensation for patients who have been affected. I believe that those are all matters that Parliament should debate.

I very much welcome the motion that Daniel Johnson has brought to the chamber and the landmark legislation that has been put in place. However, I fear that we will need to consider more issues. I hope that time will be made available for us to do so and that the minister will respond on that in her closing remarks.

Will the member take an intervention?