Chamber and committees

That is right. We went out to see you as you got to the end of your long walk.

Everyone was there. There were a lot of people.

It is tremendous that the committee has opened up and been so willing to endorse and support this young man’s dreams and to get the First Minister involved. With everything that we aspire to do as parliamentarians, when there is something as tangible as Callum’s petition, which will make a real difference to so many young people across the country, we would be foolhardy not to get on side and back it all the way.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the comments by the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, who said that local authorities are at breaking point. (S6O-00832)

The City of Edinburgh Council plans to borrow £1 billion to fund city spending over the next four years. Borrowing while interest rates are rising will involve a difficult balancing act, which will bring with it significant financial risk. Does the Scottish Government agree that its persistent underfunding of local authorities has led to councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council having to take such high-stakes financial risks?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry—before asking my question, I should have declared that I am a councillor in the City of Edinburgh Council.

Although Essure devices were withdrawn from the United Kingdom market in 2017, it is estimated that up to 2,000 women were implanted with devices. Can the minister advise members which of Scotland’s health boards implanted devices, and whether the Scottish Government has considered the merits of writing to the relevant individual GPs to raise awareness of the device’s crippling long-term side effects, given how busy the GP workload is?

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interest, as I am a councillor on City of Edinburgh Council.

I thank Jenni Minto for bringing the debate to the chamber and am delighted to have a chance to speak in recognition of Dr Elsie Inglis.

We have heard a lot about Elsie’s life and achievements and I am sure that we will learn more. Born in India, she moved to Edinburgh aged 14 with her family in 1878 and attended the Edinburgh Institute for the Education of Young Ladies until 1882. She knew that she wanted to pursue a career in medicine. In 1886, Dr Sophia Jex-Blake opened the Edinburgh School of Medicine for Women, where Inglis began her medical training.

In 1906, Inglis launched the Scottish Women’s Suffrage Federation, fighting not only for the women’s vote but for equal rights in education and the medical profession. She was nearly 50 in 1914 when war was declared and her patriotism led her to offer her services to the War Office, only for her to be turned away and denied. Inglis suggested the creation of medical units staffed by women, which could provide aid to British forces on the western front. However, she was rejected by the British War Office, the Red Cross, and the Royal Army Medical Corps. The reason for the rejection was that a woman’s role was at home.

Not deterred, Inglis fought to form independent hospital units staffed by women. An appeal for funds and support soon attracted more than just suffragette supporters. Funds poured in for the organisation—the Scottish Women’s Hospitals for Foreign Service—and both the French and the Serbs accepted the offer of the all-female medical units. The first unit left for France in November 1914 and the second went to Serbia in January 1915. Inglis went to Serbia in 1915 as the chief medical officer but, in the autumn, Serbia was invaded and Inglis’s hospital was taken over by Germans. She was interned until February 1916, when she was sent home.

In April 1916, Inglis became the first woman to be decorated with the order of the white eagle. The Elsie Inglis maternity hospital was established with surplus funds arising from the disbandment of the Scottish Women’s Hospitals for Foreign Service, the organisation that she had formed. The 20-bed hospital opened in July 1925 and closed in 1988. My dad, sister and cousins were all born there, as were countless other Edinburgh residents. Although it is now closed, it is yet another reason that a statue should be erected in her honour.

Considering all the pioneering successes that medical trailblazer Elsie Inglis had, it seems only fitting that a statue be erected in her honour in Edinburgh. There are, in fact, more animal statues than ones for women in our capital city. A long-awaited celebration of her life and legacy is now under way in Edinburgh to raise funds for a statue after a campaign was launched five years ago to coincide with the centenary of her death. The campaign has been spearheaded by the Edinburgh branch of the Girlguiding movement. Tickets are now available for several special events that will kick-start a fundraising drive. It is hoped that £50,000 will be raised to pay for a statue of her to be designed and erected on the Royal Mile.

As a councillor for the city, I was delighted to support the motion that was brought to the city chambers by the Lord Provost Frank Ross endorsing the campaign for her statue. Dr Elsie Inglis was a wartime heroine, a leading figure in the women’s suffrage movement and a founder of the Scottish women’s hospitals. Like everyone who is in the chamber, I hope that her extraordinary life will be fittingly remembered.

The Scottish Conservatives recognise the impact that Covid restrictions have had on care home residents and their families, and we gladly support the principles that underpin Anne’s law.

During the height of the pandemic, care home residents were unable to see their loved ones. Steps were taken to protect staff and residents from infection but, with hindsight, they undoubtedly caused much anguish for many residents and their families. Anne’s law is the product of a petition to the Scottish Parliament that was lodged by Natasha Hamilton, who was unable to see her mother for prolonged periods during the height of the pandemic. The petition called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow a designated visitor into care homes to support loved ones.

We agree that residents’ rights must be strengthened to give nominated relatives or friends the same access rights to care homes as staff, while following stringent infection control measures. It is unacceptable that residents and families have been subject to a postcode lottery. We must ensure that contact between residents and their close family and friends is not subject to haphazard and fluid policies. Family and friends provide critical support to residents’ mental and physical health and wellbeing, and there is no doubt that prolonged isolation from friends and family has a detrimental effect on care home residents.

With that in mind, we are disappointed that the SNP Government has taken so long to make good on its commitments and now appears to be dragging its feet on introducing the legislation to the Scottish Parliament, despite cross-party support. The commitment to deliver Anne’s law is nearly a year old, but the Scottish Government has not set out a timetable to deliver it. It has merely said that

“Anne’s Law will be introduced to Parliament as soon as is practically possible”.

The SNP allowed more than 100 Covid-positive hospital patients to be sent to care homes at the beginning of the pandemic. A report from Public Health Scotland found that from 1 March to 31 May, 113 hospital patients were discharged to care homes despite testing positive for the virus in hospital. A further 3,061 were not tested at all prior to discharge.

Former health secretary Jeane Freeman admitted that the SNP Government failed to take the right precautions when moving elderly patients from hospitals into care homes during the pandemic. Despite all that, the SNP has refused to order a public inquiry into deaths from coronavirus in Scotland’s care homes. The Scottish Parliament voted for

“the Scottish Government to hold an immediate public inquiry to find out what happened in Scotland’s care homes during the course of the pandemic”,

but Nicola Sturgeon merely said that

“we take note of the Parliament’s view”

and that the SNP Government was seeking

“early discussions on whether and how such an inquiry could be established”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2020; c 22.]

Of course, it is not only our elderly who are in residential care or nursing homes. Many young adults with physical and learning disabilities are also in care. They, too, deserve the right to see their families. Just as isolation from friends and family has a detrimental effect on care home residents, it has a negative impact on young people in similar care settings. There are stark differences between how the public and how care home residents are restricted, as Carol Mochan has rightly pointed out.

Anne’s law has cross-party support. The SNP must stop dithering and bring forward the legislation so that residents and families can have confidence that we are moving beyond what has been a failed and broken approach.

We have had a lot of information today. Given what we have heard about the challenges with signposting and the immediate and medium-term pressures we face as we come out of the pandemic, what solutions do you suggest we use to tackle those issues of signposting, funding and changing services? What short-term solutions could we implement quickly to alleviate the immediate pressures of coming out of the pandemic? That question is for Dr Williams in the first place.

We have spoken about the fact that 10 per cent of people still will not accept an appointment with an alternative health practitioner, even if one is available, but will want an appointment with a GP. Why might that be? Are there legitimate concerns regarding the availability of alternative health practitioners? We have spoken about communication being consistent and national and so on, but we do not have consistent services, so we cannot have a national message. What are your thoughts on that?