Chamber and committees

In response to written questions that I submitted on the review in September last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care informed me that the commissioned contractor, Clinco, would

“request ... appropriate case records from Health Boards.”—[Written Answers, 18 October 2021; S6W-03321]

At that point, data-sharing agreements had been reached with some health boards for access to patient records, and the cabinet secretary said that he expected agreements to be in place for “all relevant Boards” in the near future.

We are now almost six months on. Can the minister please confirm whether all data-sharing agreements are now agreed, and whether every health board has made available all the required and requested patient information? If not, can she advise what might be holding up that process?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the transvaginal mesh case record review, led by Professor Alison Britton, and the anticipated timescale for its completion. (S6O-00826)

This has been an interesting debate, with some informed and constructive contributions. I thank Anas Sarwar for the way in which he moved the motion, and I thank Katy Clark, Christine Grahame and Jamie Greene, who all brought different dimensions to the debate with their contributions.

I have a fear of heights—I am always worried that my glasses will fall off and I will be stranded—but nothing has scared me witless more in life than the wellbeing of my children. That sentiment will be shared by every single parent in the chamber. From the minute that a child becomes part of someone’s life, there is a contract that they will never forget.

As a child, we expect that we will see our parents pass—that is part of the contract of life—but we would never expect to have to deal with the loss of our own child. If people want to know what that grief looks like, they need only look at television pictures of parents in Ukraine. Fathers are having to send their children away while they go back to fight, and as mothers try to flee, their child is shot dead before them on the street—the grief is writ large. Although it does not make it any easier, they understand that the situation is due to the boot of a reckless dictator. There will be parents here who, off camera, feel exactly that grief when a child is knocked down by a car, or when a child dies of an incurable illness. However, when a child dies, and the institution of the healthcare system seems predisposed to deny us the knowledge of why it happened, that is totally unacceptable.

What worries me in part is that we have moved to a compensation culture, in which accountability is transferred and becomes “Here’s money instead.” In 2007, when I first spoke in a health debate in the chamber, the NHS paid out £18.93 million in compensation. The compensation figure for last year was revealed yesterday—it is £61.59 million.

Constituents have come to me about the death of a child or a parent, and they did not understand, or could not accept, the sequence of events that led to that loss. They have gone through a process that I can only describe as a massaging and managing of their issue, at the end of which they were told, “Of course, you can apply for compensation.” In tears, they did, eventually, but that did not answer the fundamental questions. They want to know why it happened, and they very often ask, “Is this going to happen to somebody else?” It seems to me that the transfer to a compensation culture involves an avoidance of both accountability and the determination to ensure that it will not happen again.

Back in 2019, I first raised the issue of Milly Main with the First Minister. That came on the back of an understanding that our NHS maintenance backlog was some £900 million at that point. We then asked what health inspections had been taking place and learned that the number had declined from 38 to just 14 in that year. I do not know whether that situation has now been reversed. There was, I think, an acceptance by Jeane Freeman that public confidence had been shaken, but as the months went on and the questions continued to be asked, there was a surfeit of embraces, clutching and condolences. We heard the phrase “My heart goes out to”, but there was no material advance on the fundamental questions of what happened, what was being done about it and why we did not know.

I applaud Anas Sarwar’s tenacity in pushing the issue. He and I have relied on brave souls telling us things that people did not want us to know. It is only because we found out those things that we have been able to drive the whole argument forward.

Let me be absolutely clear: I think that we should be supporting and encouraging Anas Sarwar’s bill. This is 2022, and we have to get to a point at which we do not simply say to people, “Look, rather than pursuing this, here’s some cash. You won’t actually ever find out what’s happening and we’re not ever really going to tell you. In fact, there is an institutional willingness to club together to try and hide behind a screen.” That must end. That is why I support Milly’s law, and I commend Anas Sarwar for his efforts to bring forward a bill.

Before I move the motions, I would like to acknowledge on behalf of the Parliament the work done by the previous pension fund trustees, Alison Harris, Gil Paterson and Mark Ruskell, in looking after our pension scheme.

Under rule 8(1) in part B of schedule 1 to the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009, it is for the Parliament to appoint all trustees by resolution, on nomination by the SPCB. The SPCB recently agreed to nominate Gordon MacDonald MSP and Murdo Fraser MSP as fund trustees of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme, and former MSP Mark Ballard as the pensioner trustee, to serve alongside Pauline McNeill. I will therefore move the motions for the Parliament to approve the new fund trustees.

I move,

That the Parliament appoints Gordon MacDonald MSP as a Fund trustee of the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, further to his nomination for such appointment by the Parliamentary corporation.

That the Parliament appoints Murdo Fraser MSP as a Fund trustee of the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, further to his nomination for such appointment by the Parliamentary corporation.

That the Parliament appoints Mark Ballard as a pensioner Fund trustee of the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, further to his nomination for such appointment by the Parliamentary corporation.

To ask the Scottish Government how the 2022 regulations on the prohibition of fishing in the Firth of Clyde will impact fishing businesses. (S6O-00811)

I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I wonder whether she heard Elaine Whyte, who spoke powerfully yesterday on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. Ms Whyte made clear that the Firth of Clyde closures have left many fishermen with no other option, frankly, than to find alternative work. That is, of course, causing unbelievable stress, as many of them have fishing as a lifetime career. Furthermore, she is concerned that this might lead to us having no fishermen left in the area, and that the Clyde coast will end up being a forgotten coast in terms of fishing.

Will the cabinet secretary agree to listen to the industry, and will she outline compensation plans to support those who have been affected by this peremptory closure? Will she perhaps give a guarantee that, in future, she will consult the industry before taking such important measures that have such a profound impact on the industry?

I was a member of the Scottish Parliament—although Mr Mundell was not—when Dennis Robertson gave his speech on the issue. It is partly the reason why I am in the chamber today, as it was a profoundly moving occasion for us all—his speech was very courageous and brave.

I was struck by the fact that Ms Harper indicated that that debate took place 10 years ago. With regard to the advance that we have seen in the way in which mental health and its associated stigmas are appreciated, I wonder whether we feel that sufficient progress has been made in the understanding of eating disorders. I note that we are here again, 10 years on, to debate the issue today and, although much has been done, the fundamental issues with regard to an appreciation of eating disorders and their consequences remain broadly similar to what they were when Dennis Robertson spoke in 2012.

Good morning. I am delighted to welcome everyone to the second meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do we agree to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The associated concern of hernia mesh was referred to from time to time during the progress of the committee’s dealings with the mesh petition previously. There was an immediately united, informed body of women who drove the transvaginal mesh petition forward. The issue of hernia mesh was understood to be there but did not have the same profile.

What is depressing is that the pathway seems to be exactly the same: a lack of any subsequent follow-up to establish whether issues have arisen, a denial of the association of any issues with the mesh that has been fitted, and the calling into question of the motivations or understanding of those who are themselves feeling pain and that pain being dismissed as not real but imagined. Even during the debates on recent legislation, I was reluctant to conflate the two issues because I felt that we did not have the same body of evidence. As a consequence of our pursuit of this petition, the wider body of evidence is beginning to emerge. Therefore, I think that it is very much an issue that the committee should pursue further and that we should leave the petition open.

I would very much like to welcome the minister back to the committee. The minister should have the opportunity to properly consider the evidence that we have received from the Shouldice hospital. Taking evidence from representatives of the Shouldice hospital would be slightly problematic in terms of timing because they will not be working to the same clock as our committee—I imagine that they are all fast asleep at the moment—but we could think about that.

I would like to hear from the chief medical officer and the minister. I would certainly like to understand that evidence and flag up in advance the procurement of the particular mesh material because I do not understand why that has happened. All the issues look broadly similar. When we heard from the minister previously, the Government was working on informed consent procedures. That seemed fair enough, but we have been here before.

We can assume that there is now a broader body of men who have concerns. However, a number of men have contacted me to say that they have had perfectly successful mesh procedures and it has made a huge difference. I want to understand the volume and the relationship between those who feel that they have had successful mesh procedures and those who have had unsuccessful mesh procedures. In the case of transvaginal mesh, the balance was fundamentally on the side of those who had experienced serious health consequences. That may have to form the basis of any informed consent in the event that there is an argument for the mesh process proceeding.

Are we content to take and consider further evidence from those parties that have been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1867, which was lodged by Scott Macmillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

I am delighted to say that our meeting is being streamed in BSL for those people watching and hopefully for our petitioners, who might now be watching the consideration of the petition.

The petition was last considered by the committee on 8 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee agreed to write to the SQA to establish whether the qualification called for in the petition could be introduced, what would be required in introducing it and what, if any, obstacles there might be to doing so.

A response has been received from the SQA. It advises that the decision regarding

“what qualifications must be in place to provide students with the opportunity to learn BSL, or any other additional language, from primary 1 ... is not strictly in SQA’s gift.”

It advises the committee to seek advice from those in the Scottish Government with responsibility for the language learning in Scotland: a 1+2 approach policy. The submission explains that the particular qualification types that are deemed to be part of the national qualifications suite include national courses and national units at each level from SCQF level 1 up to SCQF level 7. Furthermore, the different levels in the national qualifications help SQA to recognise the attainment of learners of all abilities and ensure that there are appropriate progression routes. SQA advises that it would not normally seek to develop a course in a new subject at just one level.

To ensure a fair appraisal of new requests, SQA advises that it has developed criteria that need to be met before considering developing national courses in a new language. Those are evidence of demand for a course; sufficient qualified and registered teachers; strategic support from a range of partners within Scottish education; and the availability of specific grant funding from the Scottish Government.

The SQA advises that previously BSL has failed to meet the first and second criteria, which were the focus of considerable debate after the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 was passed and while the BSL national plan for 2017 to 2023 was being developed. Those were the evidence for demand for a course and sufficient qualified and registered teachers. SQA advises that it has developed awards in BSL rather than national courses.

I think that we know quite a bit more than we did before. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?