Chamber and committees

In an answer at First Minister’s questions, the First Minister said that elderly constituents should not have to wait outside vaccination centres for hours, and that the cabinet secretary was meeting health boards to discuss the issue. Why are elderly constituents still having to wait outside in winter weather for their vaccine? What action is being taken to increase the availability of waiting facilities at vaccination centres?

In closing for Scottish Labour, I begin by reflecting the strong consensus that we have heard in the debate. Stage 1 of the bill marks a significant milestone in a long, painful and difficult journey for so many. The cabinet secretary rightly opened by reflecting on those who have brought us to our consideration of the bill. I, too, pay tribute to the steadfast determination of the members of the Scottish Mesh Survivors group, who have bravely told their stories and campaigned for the bill and other measures to support all those affected.

Having heard some of the testimony in committee, I am struck by the bravery of the women who have recounted the trauma that they have experienced and lived with in order to effect change not only for themselves but for the many others who have had the same experience. As we have heard, they have repeated those stories time and time again—something both hugely difficult and extremely courageous, as I am sure we would all agree.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to the MSPs, past and present, who have worked on the issue and brought us to this point, particularly Jackson Carlaw, Alex Neil and Neil Findlay.

The convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Gillian Martin, spoke powerfully when she said that the bill

“could not, and does not, undo the ... trauma”

and that, for some, trust in our health service has been irreparably damaged. What she said about control over choices, over their bodies and over their lives for those women is key to all our considerations, whether in relation to the bill or more widely.

As deputy convener of the committee, I commend the work of all involved in scrutinising the bill and, like the convener, I thank all who gave evidence, particularly those with lived experience, who were supported by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland.

Sandesh Gulhane spoke about the fact that many women simply have not been believed for a long time. He was right to highlight that many took extraordinary action to fund their treatment, spending savings or taking out costly loans—anything to stop the pain.

In line with the consensus that we find across the chamber, Scottish Labour supports the overall aims and principles of the bill. My colleague Carol Mochan spoke in Labour’s opening speech of the power of our democratic process. There is a duty on us all to use the power of the Parliament for the good of those whom we represent, and Alex Cole-Hamilton echoed that view in his powerful recollections of how the Parliament has approached the issue over the years.

We heard many powerful stories from colleagues of how the experience has impacted their constituents. Stuart McMillan spoke of Michelle, and raised the issue of the lengths to which women have had to go in order to fund treatment. He made an important point about crowdfunding, which was echoed by Craig Hoy. It is clear that further clarity is required for women who funded treatment via crowdfunding or other fundraising routes. The committee has called for clarity on that from the cabinet secretary, so I hope that the minister will begin to address the matter in closing the debate.

David Torrance spoke of his constituent’s life-changing—or rather, as his constituent very sadly put it, life-ending—experience; she felt that her life had come to an end. As Pam Gosal said, it is very difficult for us to hear such stories, but that particular story brought into sharp focus the reality for so many. Siobhian Brown did something similar in telling Isobel’s story. I hope that, whatever else we do in the Parliament, we always seek to do anything that we can to—at the very least—make life more liveable for any woman who is affected.

My colleague Katy Clark, and Alex Cole-Hamilton, raised the issue of the use of mesh in other procedures, and referred to other petitions that have come before the Parliament. I believe that those petitions merit the cabinet secretary’s attention, and I am sure that he will want to reflect on that issue more widely as we move forward.

It is clear from today’s debate that, although the principles of the bill enjoy broad support, further clarity is required in some areas as the bill process moves forward. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response, as did Gillian Mackay and other members of the committee, on the issue of residency requirements, and I hope that he will look at the timeline requirements, as he committed to do in his opening speech. Gillian Mackay also referred to the so-called “in-betweeners” and mentioned that my colleague Jackie Baillie had raised the same point at committee, when she attended as my substitute. The point is that we want a system in which no one is left behind; that point has been well made by members on all sides of the chamber this afternoon, and I am sure that the minister will cover it in summing up.

At the close of the open debate, Martin Whitfield posed some important questions for the cabinet secretary on waiting times for mesh removal and the protests that are occurring in Glasgow today. I know that the minister will want to say something on that in concluding, in order to give Martin Whitfield and other colleagues confidence that those issues are being looked at in the round and that we are trying to get it right for absolutely everyone who has been affected by them.

We should do all that we can to hold on to the consensus that has been established not only in today’s debate on the bill, but over the many years leading up to this point. We must acknowledge that there is more to do. We must never forget the pain and suffering that has been caused; the duty on us, in the Parliament, to make an attempt at reparation; and the courage of women who have fought, despite their own trauma, to try to bring light to a very dark experience in the history of our health service. We must try to ensure that it never happens again.

Good morning. Obviously, primary care is very much in focus at the moment, particularly in the context of the pandemic. However, it is fair to say that there has, over many years, been commentary that the data in relation to primary care, and an understanding of who is using primary care and where the trends are, have not always been good or available enough. As an overview, will the witnesses outline what information about primary care activity and demand is currently publicly available?

I want to follow up on the point about how local government has worked across the piece to drill down into people’s experiences and what services they require. I am interested in the work and recommendations of Professor Bruce Guthrie, at the University of Edinburgh, in this area—in particular, the idea that we can use NHS data, such as unique addresses, to understand whether people are living in sheltered housing or a care home, or in a care-at-home scenario.

I am keen to understand how we ensure that, in the national care service, we still get good-quality, localised data and information about a person. That helps us to see the bigger picture with regard to housing mix, housing need and requirements in an individual area, whether it is rural or urban, and other such issues.

The point is well made that the approach cannot be one size fits all and that we need to look at varying aspects. NHS England operates an app that covers all the things that Chaloner Chute mentioned, such as GP appointments, prescriptions and Covid status. What are we learning from that? That has been in place for a period—why do we not have an equivalent? Does Jim Miller or anyone else know anything about that?

Good morning. Witnesses have already touched on the necessity during Covid to upscale and move forward what we are doing in relation to digital. Obviously, NHS 24 has had a key role in developing many of the services, and it is fair to say that, within that, there has been a degree of quick movement and upscaling of projects that were already planned.

I want to get a sense of Jim Miller’s reflections on what has worked well and what has been challenging. In my experience, certain applications have worked better than others and have needed refining and testing. Jim, can you kick off with your reflections on that issue?

Your assessment is fair. There is a sense that there were challenges in relation to getting things up and running initially—for example, on proof of vaccination, which took a while to come on stream in a digital format.

You make an interesting point about that younger cohort. However, my sense from my inbox is that it goes across age ranges—people have a real desire to have things in one place, such as in one app, particularly when it comes to their vaccination status. There have certainly been issues around where people can book vaccinations and so on. Covid has brought all that to fore.

There is ambition to bring those seams together and to have that one-digital-door approach. More broadly, it is also about how we access services. The question is how we bring all the parts of that together. Is there an ambition to have a one-door app that would allow us to access our medical records if we require them and also to use services? That might be Jim Miller’s bailiwick.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Following on from that, I have two questions. How will we use the data that we hope to bring on stream to chart somebody’s journey through health and social care? A person might present to their GP but then go elsewhere, or might feel that it is appropriate to present at an accident and emergency department. There is a discussion at the moment about where presentations happen. How will we link the data to look at people’s journeys?

Secondly, how will we chart unmet needs? Some people are not having their needs met in the most appropriate place. I ask in particular in relation to digital formats, which people are using more and more.

Last week, I asked the cabinet secretary about cancellation of surgery, in particularly cancer surgery, as NHS boards struggle under immense pressure. He pointed to the challenges of the pandemic, but we know that waiting lists have been growing for years. Elective surgery is also a concern and people are struggling in pain for long periods. What is he doing to support NHS boards to enable surgery to recommence? We want practical measures to be taken, such as increasing bed capacity. We also want the recommendations of the royal colleges to be listened to.

The heartbroken family of Andrew Slorance is not the only family seeking answers about what happened to loved ones at Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Theresa Smith, as reported on front page of the Greenock Telegraph today, has spoken of the deep pain that her family has endured since the death of her daughter, Sophia, in April 2017 at just 12 days old. Sophia died of an infection that she contracted at the Queen Elizabeth, despite initially responding well to treatment for breathing problems. The family was not informed and had to fight for a post mortem to know the truth. Theresa and her family have described the tortuous journey to try and get answers about what happened, with phone calls, emails and letters stonewalled. She, too, has pointed to a cover-up.

I heard what the First Minister said in response to Anas Sarwar about the public inquiry. Does she recognise that the inquiry did not save Andrew Slorance and will not save patients right now? What is the Government doing immediately to prevent such terrible and tragic deaths from happening again?