Chamber and committees

As my questions relate specifically to social work, I will direct them to Ben Farrugia. Ben, you have already alluded to the fact that, although you have the money for social workers, you do not have the social workers there—if that makes any sense. What resources will be needed to enable social work teams to implement the bill’s changes, given the restrictions—or, I should say, challenges—that you have with regard to recruitment? We can then look at some solutions to the recruitment issue, if you do not mind.

Thank you for sharing that. We appreciate the use of that example to flesh things out.

Jillian Gibson, you are nodding away and I have been trying to catch your eye. Would you like to come in?

Going back to the sequencing issue and Jillian Gibson’s eloquent explanation of the challenges and the complex things that are going on, I wonder what you are doing right now about all of this. Obviously, these things are in the future, but you must have some idea of what might be coming. Are there any key improvements that you are working on or that could be made in the meantime while we are waiting for all of this to fall into place?

Does Ben Farrugia want to come in on that?

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her patience.

We move to questions from the deputy convener.

Ben Macpherson wants to come in, too.

Substantial and sustained improvement on delayed discharge depends significantly on addressing social work and social care workforce issues. In response to the winter planning 2023-24 inquiry in the Scottish Parliament, Social Work Scotland highlighted the issue with non-recurring funding and the detrimental impact that it has on recruitment and retention of staff. There is difficulty filling posts due to the short-term nature of the contract, which is leading to the unintended consequence of greater insecurity in the sector.

I have raised questions about vaginal mesh in the chamber before and have written articles in support of the women affected, and I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. Like many of my fellow MSPs across the chamber, I have constituents who have come to me regarding their post-operative experience of transvaginal mesh surgery and of the circus of on-going referral that continues to this day as they seek help.

I know that there are countless women who had the procedure and benefited greatly from it, with their pelvic organ prolapses being cured or their stress urinary incontinence reversed. However, we cannot ignore the voices of the women who have experienced life-changing complications from the procedure and continue to struggle as a result.

When I look at the motion that the Scottish Government has presented to us, I feel a sense of disappointment and perhaps even a shared sense of bewilderment with the women. The motion appears not to recognise that many women are still unable to access the treatment for which they are desperate.

Whether that treatment be in Glasgow, Missouri or Bristol, many women no longer trust the services that are provided by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, albeit at the new ambulatory care hospital in south Glasgow. In fact, at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in April, 75 women came to share their experiences of the complex mesh surgical service. Women with long-term negative experiences felt that, rightly or wrongly, those views coloured their views of the current west of Scotland services. In fact, things were so bad that it was said that

“trust in the many medical professionals they have encountered”

was

“all but completely depleted”.

A constituent of mine told me that she has been in constant pain since her operation 17 years ago. The plan that the Scottish Government unveiled in July 2020 gave her hope, but she is living proof that the promise has not been fully honoured. She said:

“I find it impossible to trust the NHS to care for me with mesh issues. A life with mesh is a painful, humiliating, and soul-destroying existence and has already destroyed so much of our lives.”

Today’s Scottish Government motion makes no reference to that continuing pain. That is deeply concerning. We hear time and again that the Scottish Government is listening to the women’s views, but I am afraid that the actions taken do not appear to reflect that. The women deserved to get free specialist treatment after many of them were rebuffed by their health authorities.

Our Conservative Party amendment reflects the unnecessarily complex referral pathway that women must endure and the lengthy waits as they ping between services. Evelyn Tweed commented on how the women were moved from pillar to post. As of April 2023, the median wait for referral to the complex mesh surgical service in Glasgow was 236 days and the longest wait was 448 days. Women then need to wait a significant length of time to start treatment that might alleviate or even remove their symptoms. However, I ask members to remember that that does not even include the time that it takes to get an appointment with their health board first.

Our amendment also acknowledges that, to date, there is no clear pathway for women to be referred to an independent external service, whether that be in England or Missouri, should they not want to go to Glasgow. In 2019, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised that she was absolutely committed and determined to do everything possible to get those women the treatment and care that they needed. However, when he was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf agreed to the principle that the treatment that those women desperately need can be accessed only after approval from the same authorities that were obstructive in the first place.

Neither I nor the women who have contacted me over the years believe that the Scottish Government has done enough to engage with mesh survivors or to help with their heartbreaking plight. The victims must receive the treatment that Mr Yousaf now says that they are entitled to receive for free. Unfortunately, I am not certain that the commercial terms for those external referrals have been arranged on a long-term basis.

The Scottish Conservatives supported the Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill, and we have been supportive since the issue was raised in the Scottish Parliament by public petition. However, the Scottish National Party Government must do more to ensure that women who are affected by mesh can access the services that they need.