Chamber and committees

The convener is now with us again. I have had my five minutes of fame, so I will pass back to her.

Yes. In reply to the previous question, you spoke quite powerfully about the community-based approach. I am keen to get a sense from you of what more we can do in communities.

The convener is in the process of rebooting her computer, so I will continue to chair the meeting. We move to questions from Stephanie Callaghan on outcomes.

Following on from that theme and line of questioning, I want to talk about the community approach. We had started to hear a flavour of the benefit that is associated with taking a community-based approach. Will Kevin Kane expand on some of the benefits of the role of communities in enhancing the wellbeing of young people?

I am pleased to make a contribution as we reach stage 3 of this important bill. It has been a long process. As an MSP who was elected last year, I have been part of the process for only a short time.

Tribute is due to all the brave women who have told their story time and again, campaigned ferociously and called on us to do the right thing despite all their personal pain, both physical and mental. Tribute is also due, as we have heard already, to Jackson Carlaw, Alex Neil, Neil Findlay and other colleagues in Parliament who have worked to keep the issue firmly on the agenda and the Government on track to deliver the legislation.

I am sure that, for many people, today feels like another milestone on what has become a journey for justice. I have only had a short insight into that from a parliamentary point of view, through the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. It has been humbling to be a part of the process of scrutinising the bill. As other speakers have said, listening to the evidence of so many women and thinking about how to act accordingly has been key to that process.

Scottish Labour is supportive of the overall aims and principles of the bill. Far too many women have gone through a traumatic experience since having their mesh fitted, and it is right that the Scottish Government covers any related costs that have been incurred in removing the device. As we have said at each stage, it is imperative that any agreed legislation ensures that all patients who have taken steps to have their mesh removed are reimbursed. No one should be left behind.

The cabinet secretary is right when he speaks of the consensual approach that has been taken to the bill and the consensus that we found at the committee stage. It is welcome that my colleague Jackie Baillie’s amendment was accepted at stage 2. It will ensure that, although mesh removal surgery must have been arranged by the date specified in the scheme, the actual surgery does not need to have taken place by then. That will be a great comfort to many people.

We were supportive of Sue Webber’s amendments, which were helpful and sought to reflect much of what we heard in committee. They will ensure that women will have access to specialist services for on-going issues and, as specified in her first amendment, that the timeframe for mesh removal surgery will not apply to that.

I note the cabinet secretary’s willingness to engage on the issue and to ensure that it will be for the NHS to respond and make sure that any further surgery can take place. Given the on-going pressures on the NHS, the cabinet secretary should expect scrutiny on that as we progress, which I am sure that he will be open to.

I highlight the contribution that my colleague Carol Mochan has made in her stage 2 amendments to extend eligibility to those who are

“not ordinarily a resident in Scotland”

and to ensure provision for people who incurred costs on behalf of someone else. She made her case strongly and, again, I know that the cabinet secretary engaged on the issues with her to ensure that the scope of the bill was as wide as possible and that nobody would fall through the gaps.

We have the opportunity today to offer financial redress to people who have endured so much, who have travelled across oceans and who often have spent all that they had to relieve pain and live life a little more fully. We cannot take away all their pain, either physical or psychological, but we can use the powers of this Parliament to do the right thing. There will, of course, be more to do, and this is not the end of the journey. However, we can back the bill at decision time, ensuring that we do right by mesh survivors and leave no one behind.

Yesterday, I was contacted by a constituent who had cancer surgery cancelled with only a few days’ notice, as there were no beds in recovery or in any other ward for cancer procedures at our local hospital. Last year, the target for 95 per cent of urgent referrals with a suspicion of cancer to start treatment within 62 days was missed again.

My constituent’s family are calling for additional capacity to treat cancer patients. Will the First Minister listen to their anxious pleas and the pleas of so many and take action on waiting list numbers and delayed discharge rates, which were too high pre-pandemic? Will she introduce a robust recovery plan for cancer services?

Last week, it was reported that one third of Scottish care homes are now restricting visits because of the high prevalence of infections in communities and the interpretation of a managed outbreak by public health authorities. Relatives, however, feel that, with a correct testing regime and protective measures in place, visiting should be maintained in line with guidance. Indeed, some have called for the Care Inspectorate to take on the key role of checking that testing is robust, comprehensive and publicly reported in inspection reports to provide confidence and keep homes open to visitors. As we move forward, will the minister look at that role for the Care Inspectorate in monitoring, reporting and ensuring that care homes remain open to visitors?

I remind members that I am still a member of East Renfrewshire Council, where I have been a councillor for almost 10 years. It has been—and continues to be—one of the most fulfilling roles that I have ever had the honour to have. Indeed, to be a councillor representing the community you grew up in is an honourable thing.

As a councillor, I have been the convener for education and deputy leader of the council, and I have seen first hand over the past decade how the SNP Government has worn down local government, forcing those in charge to cut services as the budgets are continually cut, year after year.

It has been incredibly challenging to be a local representative when we are consistently faced with budget processes that bring more and more cuts. Indeed, I think of the anxious wait that councillors have every year as we await the settlement from the Government; the long meetings to discuss how to plug some of the gaps using reserves or council tax; and the painful consultation processes as we try to decide on the least worst option in a sea of unthinkable options.

I am not sure whether colleagues in the chamber who have not had to do any of that can fully understand the sleepless nights that it causes, thinking about people’s jobs, people’s services and the communities that we care about.

It is not just councillors who feel like that; it is also the staff, who work so hard in local government. Nobody seeks a career in a local authority in order to make cuts, but Government choices have made many of our dedicated local government officers managers of cuts. I have watched the stress of hard-working officers in education, social work and environment, when they have to spend so much time coming up with unthinkable options, just to square the budget.

I have also seen our workers stretched thin, as they are asked to do more and more to plug the gaps that have been created by cuts. Every Thursday night during the pandemic, the First Minister and Cabinet applauded our key workers, but stress is being piled on to those workers, 55 per cent of whom are paid below £25,000 a year. That is shameful.

Every day in my ward, I see how cuts that have been forced down from Government are hitting our communities and the most vulnerable. Pupil support assistant numbers have been cut, road budgets have been reduced and social care is on its knees. The reality of all that is that people across Scotland are being failed, and there is no sign of it getting better.

We hear from the Government that it has delivered initiatives, such as free early learning and childcare and free school meals, but there is not nearly enough funding to deliver that on the ground in reality, and to ensure that the core infrastructure can be maintained in order to make those things happen.

Of course, the Government is always keen to hold up its manifesto commitments, but what is the reality on the ground when local government has to deliver them? The reform to council tax never appeared; funding to refurbish every play park in Scotland was barely a fraction of what was required; and the proposal to give a free bike to every pupil who cannot afford one was consigned to a pilot that does not scratch the surface. Those are empty words and broken promises from the SNP.

The future holds even more cuts to local government budgets. The budget that was published last month saw a core funding cut of £371 million. That budget makes no provision for pay, inflation, increased demand for services or—as we have heard—the increased burden of national insurance contributions.

To place those cuts in a wider context, that is all happening as we see one of the biggest increases to the cost of living in decades. Such is the scale of the problem that there has been an unprecedented reaction from all 32 council leaders in Scotland, who are calling for the Government to meet them to discuss the settlement, because enough is enough.

It is clear that the SNP Government has failed local government and those who live in our communities. Cuts to councils are cuts to communities and, if the course does not change, the very fabric of our communities will be irreparably damaged.

I know that I have asked the cabinet secretary about this before in relation to other areas of this work, but what about dispute resolution when there is a difference of opinion? I know that he will use his good nature and strong relationships to try to find a way through in relation to the Scottish Parliament’s position or, indeed, Scotland’s position on an issue, but is there is a robust resolution procedure that we could use? Would that be invoked more readily, or does he have concerns—I am sure that he does—about unilateral decision making? Does he have confidence that such a procedure is in place?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Is the Scottish Government comfortable that the common framework will provide sufficient opportunity for the Government to input to any future negotiations or for fulfilment of international obligations in the policy area?