Chamber and committees

Thank you for allowing me to speak. The petition obviously follows a petition to your predecessor committee, and some of the new members on the committee might not be aware of the issue.

Basically, there are two treatments for essential tremor. Essential tremor is very disabling, because it makes people shake. It can affect things that we all take for granted, such as drinking and eating in public, and it can even affect the way that someone speaks. The people who suffer from it tend not to mix socially. It is a very difficult illness to deal with and it tends to have a very late diagnosis. Mary Ramsay, who is my constituent and the petitioner, was not diagnosed until her 40s.

Mary Ramsay has had brain surgery to deal with essential tremor. Brain surgery works and is a proven treatment, but the difficulty with it is that people need to go back and have the electrodes moved. People who have brain surgery for essential tremor have a lifetime of procedures ahead of them. Focused ultrasound is non-invasive—there is no brain surgery involved. It is a one-off treatment, and it is life changing for those who receive it.

In England, focused ultrasound is an approved treatment that NHS England funds. People from Scotland can be referred to NHS England for treatment, which seems totally crazy to me, because we have the machine in Dundee and we could be treating people here and now in Scotland, at a much lower cost.

The petition is not from people in my constituency, but the committee will have seen that the Caithness health action team made a submission to the committee in support of it. Their concerns are similar to those of others in that people in that area have huge distances to travel to access medical treatment. Some funding is available, but it is not adequate and does not remove the financial disadvantage. There is also a social disadvantage for people with caring responsibilities—for example, children have to be looked after while they are away—all of which creates huge problems for people. That is a consistent problem throughout the Highlands and Islands area that I represent and it has been an issue for me for all the time that I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament.

I understand that the training for medics, nurses and all those involved in healthcare is geared towards teamwork so that people can collaborate when working together to provide healthcare. In remote rural areas, however, we ask people to work very much on their own without any back-up and to depend on their own skills and knowledge, but the training does not equip people to do that.

We also see that the NHS values specialisation. If a person specialises in a subject, their grading goes up, and that is true for doctors and nurses. However, at one point, I was speaking to nurses who work in the area that I cover who have a huge range of skills because they need to cope with anything that comes through the door and what is happening there and then, but they are on a basic banding. The breadth of their knowledge was not recognised; only the depth of their knowledge was recognised.

There are therefore huge disincentives for people who are generalists to become involved. One is from a training point of view, and the other is from a financial and career progression point of view. I therefore agree with the petitioners. We need an agency to take up the issue and work with it by looking at training and remuneration to make sure that we have health services in those remote and rural communities. It gets to the point where people are maybe not getting the health interventions that they need as quickly as they can, because it becomes very difficult for them. We do not need an A and E around every corner, but we do need to provide those kinds of services to people, without the same in-depth specialisms that there are elsewhere. People should have the same access to health services, regardless of where they live.

I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate.

It is sad that Alasdair Allan has had to raise in the chamber something that we would surely have expected to happen naturally. That it has not happened smacks of a bygone colonial age when people had decisions made for and about them by a distant power. We must strive to be better than that.

There is a host of talent in our island communities, alongside the numerous people who make their living at sea—people in the Merchant Navy, people who fish and people who work offshore, for example. There are businesspeople and people with in-depth knowledge of logistics and customer services—I could go on. The talent is there. We have the skills and expertise on the islands to fill boards.

We must acknowledge the importance to our communities of resilient and dependable ferry services. When someone’s livelihood and wellbeing depend on those services, the person has a whole new perspective on them. If islanders were on those boards, would we be in the position that we are? Too many cancellations to mention have had a devastating impact on the lives of those who live on the islands, and on the islands’ economies. That ferry staff having to deal with the fallout of that also makes life very difficult for them.

I question whether we believe that CMAL should exist. Is it necessary for ferry provision? The experience with the ferries that it has tried to procure—the MV Glen Sannox and hull 802—have proved the point that CMAL is no longer fit for purpose and, worse, that it is damaging the communities that it should be serving. Those services no longer need to be put out to tender, and it follows that CalMac should own and procure its own vessels. Islanders need an end to vanity projects. I am sure that, had islanders had been on those boards, they would have ensured that the ferries had been designed before the contracts had been signed, and that the design would have ensured that the ferries could dock at the harbours from which they operate and at other harbours where they might be required as relief vessels. It is absolutely nonsensical that the harbours will be required to change in order to allow the ferries to dock at and operate from them. The cost of those two ferries is much greater than the cost of just building them, because it also includes the cost of adapting the harbours.

Island board members would have also seen to it that vessels would provide the additional capacity that is required in the summer months, and the flexibility and resilience that are required in winter. It is well known that the people of Lewis wanted two smaller vessels rather than the MV Loch Seaforth. That would have provided additional capacity in the summer and a relief boat to cover maintenance and dry docking in the winter. That makes perfect sense if you live on an island and are well used to the turmoil that is created when boats need repair. I have been asking for a relief vessel for many years.

Covid-19 created a perfect storm this year, but the service was struggling prior to the pandemic. Others have highlighted the impact of all this. I am really worried about what will have to happen before the Government will act. Our islands desperately need resilient seagoing vessels that are fit for purpose and built on time and on budget. I suggest that, had island dwellers been on the boards, that would have happened. I think that the same is true of HIAL: had islanders been on the board, the centralisation of air traffic control would not have happened, because those board members would have understood the importance of service before vanity.

I would urge the minister to heed the motion and to act before our island economies are damaged beyond repair.

The food and drink sector is incredibly important to Scotland, as we have heard today. We in the Scottish Labour Party have been calling for the Scottish Government to bring forward a good food nation bill that is worthy of the sector’s importance for years. Sadly, it has continued to delay. Seven years has passed since the publication of the national food and drink policy, and we are still waiting for a good food nation bill. The Government pleads the pandemic, but Covid-19 has, if anything, underlined the urgent necessity of such legislation, rather than pointed to the need for delay.

I echo Colin Smyth’s thanks to food and drink workers. Many of those working in the industry were on the front line during the pandemic, working in shops, delivering food, providing assistance and, indeed, growing food. However, many of those workers depended on food banks for their nourishment. Many workers in the hospitality industry found themselves sidelined when they were furloughed, while many others did not even get that, because of the seasonal nature of their jobs. Others sought and found alternative employment, which has left a huge staff shortage throughout the industry.

Through all those issues, the pandemic has caused a huge increase in the dependence on food banks. It is horrendous that the Trussell Trust provided 221,554 emergency food parcels. Martin Whitfield reminded us of a time, not that long ago, when food banks were not required. We should all aspire to having as a core principle in our food and drink strategy the aim of ending the need for food banks—everybody should be able to access good nutritional food.

The Scottish Government has dithered over legislating for a right to food. The right to food should be at the centre of the Government’s good food nation bill, but we hear today that that is not going to happen. I will introduce a member’s bill that would enshrine in Scottish law the right to food and create a commission to drive that right into a reality. Work on that was started by my colleague Elaine Smith, and I have pledged to continue it until the right exists in Scottish law.

In Scotland, we are privileged to have the best food and drink in the world, from Scottish whisky to Scottish salmon, and from Tunnock’s teacakes to Stornoway black pudding—the list goes on. Every member took the opportunity to name check the good food in their constituencies. I cannot do so, because there are far too many examples in my area, although Jenni Minto managed to get in most of the ones in Argyll and Bute. She led the charge on that, closely followed by Finlay Carson for his constituency.

It was lovely to hear all that, but it highlighted the obscenity of people going hungry and malnourished in a country with such bounty. Some members rightly took time to pay tribute to those who work in food banks to provide free food, but they should not have to do that. Martin Whitfield passionately addressed that issue and pointed out how dehumanising it can be to depend on charity for such a basic human right.

Colin Smyth talked about enshrining the right to food in Scottish law. He said that that is vital to all our people, and that we need an independent authority to make it happen. It is important that such an authority is part of any bill to ensure that the policy is driven forward. We know that lack of food and poor nutrition have a huge effect on physical and psychological wellbeing, so it is important that we make sure that food is available to everybody, not through charities but in their own right.

On the Conservative amendment, Alex Rowley and Martin Whitfield made the point that the issue is not what is in the amendment; we disagree with what the amendment would take out of the Government motion. The Conservatives’ points would have been made more strongly if they had recognised some of the UK Conservative Government’s shortcomings in respect of our food and drink policy.

Colin Smyth talked about local procurement, which should be a fundamental part of any food and drink strategy. The Government should not just hand down the strategy; it should work locally to enable small producers to become involved in procurement for our hospitals and schools. Elena Whitham made the same points in her speech, and Finlay Carson talked about meals that are produced in Wales being served in Scottish schools and hospitals, which surely is not right for the environment or for our local businesses.

One of the main concerns that have been raised in the debate has been about the lack of a policy—Willie Rennie, Finlay Carson and others made that point. We are asking farmers and crofters to reach net zero, but we do not have a clue how to help them to achieve that, which is simply not right. If the farming and crofting community do not achieve it, that will not be their fault; it will be the Government’s fault.

The lack of an overall food policy causes many issues. It causes a lack of skills and climate change goals to be missed and it fundamentally affects people’s access to food. That omission will cost us dearly with the health impact of a poor diet. Those who live in our poorer areas lose 20 years of their lives and are more likely to die of Covid. Creating a right to food must be seen as a national emergency. That is my final comment.

The ferries to the Western Isles and the Argyll islands are at one third of capacity. Coupled with the constant breakdowns, that is preventing people from travelling, which is causing personal and economic hardship. The First Minister has talked about short-notice spaces and turn-up-and-go places on ferries, but I have yet to find anyone who has been able to access those. People have contacted me saying that they tried to access them but were told that no such accommodation exists. One additional ferry really will not cut it. Therefore, will the First Minister look at how capacity can be substantially increased safely while ensuring that the mitigations that should be in place are in place for local people?

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. Tha mi airson taing a thoirt do Alasdair Allan airson an deasbad seo a thogail. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Alasdair Allan for bringing forward the debate. Please excuse my poor Gaelic in my introduction.

The debate is timely, given the work that is taking place to consult on and draft the new national plan for Gaelic. Although there are disagreements about how we protect and increase Gaelic speaking in our communities, I believe that many of them stem from a real frustration regarding the decline of the language. That is not to say that the actions that are being taken are wrong, but there must be many more interventions at every level. There also has to be a step change in support. I ask all those who have an interest in promoting and protecting Gaelic to set aside their differences and endeavour their best to protect and grow the language.

We need an ambitious plan. I see colleagues in Wales regularly legislating on Welsh—reviewing, renewing and setting new and challenging targets—whereas in Scotland the Government seems to ignore and underfund. Bòrd na Gàidhlig has faced a real-terms cut of more than 30 per cent in its budget in the past decade. In the 22 years of this Parliament, we have legislated on Gaelic only once. In 15 years of Scottish National Party government, we have done nothing but cut funding.

The Government acts in a silo. It ignores the fact that Gaelic is dying because Gaelic-speaking communities are dying, and often at the Government’s hand as it centralises jobs away from the vernacular communities. How many Gaelic-speaking families will be taken from the Western Isles by the ill-advised Scottish Government plan to centralise air traffic control in Inverness?

To survive, those communities need jobs and homes, as well as access to Gaelic education and the ability to use Gaelic in everyday life. The Scottish Government and its agencies must enable interaction to happen in Gaelic and ensure that it is the first language of interaction in the vernacular communities. They must expand those communities in line with investment in teaching the language. Road signs and branding are all good and well, but they do nothing to develop one more Gaelic speaker. In the Western Isles and the Gaelic-speaking areas in the west of Scotland, the Government must ensure that education and public interaction are in Gaelic. It must fund the Bòrd adequately to allow it to carry out its role, but it must also empower it to do that. A review and renewal of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 is urgently required to enable that to happen.

However, the development of Gaelic does not fall to the Bòrd alone. Councils, Government and agencies also need to step up and take leadership. If we do not, Gaelic will be lost as a language for daily communication. That has already happened in huge swathes of Scotland, leading to a loss of culture, history and heritage. We must remember that the history of the common people is handed down through stories, poetry and song, and all of that has been lost to the up-and-coming generation where the language has been lost. We need Gaelic in the classroom, but we also need it in the community.

I urge the Government to look to Wales—to look to its ambition and to equal it. We also need an overarching policy in order to empower communities to take the lead by funding them to lead that development. This is not a power struggle. We require everyone to do their bit to protect and expand the use of Gaelic. It was the language of Scotland, and of parts of northern England, as well. Our aim and our ambition must be to reinstate Gaelic as a language at home, at work and at play—a language that has equal status to English.

Commercial sexual exploitation is an aspect of violence against women that we have made very little progress in defeating, and prostitution is a signal of how unequal our society is with regard to women. Victims of exploitation are still criminalised while those who exploit them face no sanction whatever. Will the Scottish Government legislate to change that situation and, in doing so, look at how victims who have been prosecuted can have their convictions erased? After all, such convictions are a huge barrier to their exiting prostitution and starting new lives for themselves.

I congratulate Douglas Ross on securing the debate, and I congratulate Karen Adam on making her first speech in the Parliament.

The birth of a child should be a joyous occasion, with the mother surrounded by her partner and family. It is not an illness; it is a life event that requires to be cherished. That is why giving birth in the setting that the mother desires, with access to family, is crucial.

We all know that things can go wrong and that intervention can be required to save both mother and child. Having obstetricians and paediatricians on hand to intervene at short notice gives confidence to parents and to midwives.

That should be the case in Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin. Indeed, it was the case until staffing shortages forced what was supposed to be a temporary change. Unfortunately, three years later, the change appears to be permanent.

As other members said, Dr Gray’s is not the only hospital in such a situation. The service is no longer available at the Caithness general either, and there appears to be no will on the part of NHS Highland to look again at the matter.

The issue is the lack of paediatricians. When the situation in Caithness was assessed, it was suggested that obstetric support alone might lead to a delay in transfer in an emergency, which would mean that a baby who was born in difficult circumstances would not have paediatric support. The lack of both sets of professionals is forcing women in labour who get into difficulty to be transferred by ambulance while they are in labour. Many women in that situation have given birth in even more dangerous circumstances. The case of the twins who were born in two different counties illustrates that; only the quick thinking and dedication of staff saved the day.

The alternative is inductions and elective caesarean sections, which are not without risk. There has been a marked increase in those procedures. Risk assessments are needed in relation to the increase in caesarean sections and the risks of travel while in labour, especially on poor roads in wintry conditions.

The Scottish Government must carry the responsibility for the situation. It has failed to train sufficient staff to enable women to give birth closer to home. It needs to turn the situation around and ensure that medics are trained—and, more important, trained in a rural setting.

In the interim, the Government needs to consider how to get specialists to the mother and baby, rather than expecting a mother in labour to travel to services. It needs to enable ScotSTAR—the Scottish specialist transport and retrieval service, which provides emergency stabilisation and retrieval—to consider how it can extend the service to obstetric and associated paediatric support.

It is a huge disappointment that the service at Dr Gray’s has not been reinstated, and we need to see more tangible action now. I pay tribute to the Keep MUM group, which has led the campaign to restore the service. I wish the group well and offer my support to its campaign until we get the services reinstated at Dr Gray’s.

Those courts need to be robust and must understand the nature of domestic abuse and violence against women. We want those who lead the defence and the prosecution of those cases to have that understanding. Far too often, a woman is blamed in court for the abuse that she has suffered. Of course, we need juries, but we need them to be made to understand the nature of domestic abuse. In my dealings with constituents, I have encountered teachers and social workers who do not understand the nature of domestic abuse, and people who are picked off the street, as jurors are, have the same issues. They need to be led and guided by the professionals in the courts to ensure that they do the job properly and offer that protection. The very low conviction rates for domestic and sexual abuse come from our courts, and we need to do something about it. We cannot continue the way we are. We need those specialist courts.

We also need to tackle commercial sexual exploitation, which underlies inequality. The perception that men can access women and that women are available for sale in our country is simply wrong. We need to change the position of women in our society and make them truly equal in order to tackle violence against women. We also need to hold the men accountable, because it is not a woman’s problem—it is a man’s problem, and we need to make sure that they are held to account. Maggie Chapman made that point in her opening speech, but she carried it further by saying how difficult a problem abuse of power can be in our society and that we need to deal with it.

Presiding Officer, I wanted to touch on an awful lot of other aspects in this very important debate, but I am already running out of time. I will take a moment to highlight a local issue that Edward Mountain talked about: HMP Inverness. In Inverness, we have an ancient prison that has been subject to Covid outbreaks because people cannot social distance. We cannot treat prisoners properly, and we desperately need to do that now. We also need a prison facility that is fit for women, as women have to go to HMP Grampian and HMP Cornton Vale, which can be many miles away from their families. That is simply not right.

We need a justice system that is there to protect, to prevent and to rehabilitate. It must change, and we need to provide that protection in an ever-changing world. We must provide the same protection to all, regardless of their gender or their ethnicity. We must all be equal before the law; therefore, we must all be equally protected by the law.

Yes, I will take the intervention.