Chamber and committees

I think that everyone would agree that there are very clear benefits to complainers in not being retraumatised by the continual retelling of their story over and over again. For those who might be interested in the issue, that is illustrated very well by the television true crime series “Unbelievable”, which shows the compassionate and not-so-compassionate treatment of victims of such crimes.

That type of video-recorded evidence is now standard in many other jurisdictions, and I am pleased that the minister said that there will be an interim report on progress. I am keen to know what the timetable for the interim report is and what progress there is on the potential roll-out of the policy across the rest of the country, as it is a key part of improving evidence gathering and lessening the impact on victims.

That is helpful.

Okay, thank you. Antony wanted to come back in as well.

Good morning. I want to ask about funding that was allocated in 2021-2022 to support the recovery of services. Some £5 million pounds was made available for ventilation improvements, and in 2021, £7.5 million was made available for the purchase of electric red band handpieces and motors. Did the funding improve the ability of practices to see more patients, and did it build long-term resilience into the system?

Antony Visocchi is indicating that he would like to come in.

If no one else wants to come in on those points, I will move on.

Should funding have been provided for other measures? Antony Visocchi, you were saying that the electric motors were not as helpful as they might have been. Were there other measures that might have improved the rate of recovery of services? Looking to the future, on funding for support for reform, are there other types of funding available or are there other issues that need to be funded in order to move things forward?

Okay. What are your views on whether other measures should have been funded to improve that rate of recovery and on other funding for the future?

I was going to ask the minister about the common frameworks process and the way that that is managed across other parts of the UK. During your exchange with Mark Ruskell, you said—you can correct me if I am mischaracterising it in any way—that the Scottish Government had been following the common frameworks process but that the UK Government had not followed the process that it itself had set. Euan Page said that the process was under strain. That is the process that will make things work, if you like, and it is through that that those disagreements would be aired. Is there scope to make it function when it is not currently doing so? Alternatively, do you think that we have gone past that stage?

Okay, thanks—that is helpful. My understanding is that a dispute resolution function is built into the “Resources and Waste Provisional Common Framework”. Has the DRS been raised as a dispute under the framework? If not, has that been done under the intergovernmental relations dispute resolution process?

I commend Jeremy Balfour for bringing such a serious issue to the chamber for debate. A number of excellent contributions have been made so far.

We are discussing failures in paediatric audiology at NHS Lothian. As we know, the review identified 155 children who were seriously affected. However, as other members have said, because of the timeframe, the review might not have picked up everyone who was affected. I raise that as an urgent point and ask the minister to look into it further to see whether anyone has been missed.

The root causes that were identified as contributing to the failures were listed as a lack of scientific leadership; a lack of knowledge, reflection and inquiry; and a lack of robust quality assurance processes. That led to assessments being carried out incorrectly. It is very disappointing that, at this stage, departments are being run in that way. If the minister is not able to advise on that today, I ask her to write to me and others on what progress has been made to deliver on the many recommendations that the review made. Many of those recommendations were extremely urgent.

This week, I took the opportunity to speak to two families in my constituency who were affected. I spoke to Stephanie, mother to Rory, who is 11. Despite repeated testing when Rory was a baby and a young toddler, unfortunately, he was not diagnosed as profoundly deaf until he was four. He went on to be fitted with a hearing aid and, later, cochlear implants. Stephanie told me that that represents five years of missed communications. Rory will start high school in the not-too-distant future, and his mother is very concerned that the developmental delay that was created by that level of misdiagnosis will not be closed by the time that he goes to high school. That will put him at a disadvantage without significant additional support, which he is, unfortunately, not receiving.

The second family I spoke to have quite a similar story. Their daughter was tested repeatedly as a baby and young toddler. When she was three years old, the family was told that she could hear perfectly well, which, of course, was incorrect. Her case was eventually picked up in the audit, and she was finally diagnosed as being deaf from birth. She is now four and a half and has been fitted with a hearing aid. However, disappointingly, at the family’s most recent audiology appointment, the clinical staff seemed to have no notes and seemed unaware of or unable to understand the diagnosis. Unfortunately, that does not fill that family—and perhaps others—with confidence that the culture that led to the failures in the first place has been addressed and improved on.

Misdiagnosis and mismanagement have caused both of those children and their families unnecessary suffering. The issues in NHS Lothian must be addressed, and those who have been affected need support. Fiona Hyslop put it very well when she said that that support needs to be specific, additional and on-going. I suggest that it should perhaps take the form of a full, individualised support plan for each child and their family; Carol Mochan made an excellent point in that regard. Such support is essential and, to be frank, it is the least that can be done to support the children and families who have been affected.

I hope that the minister will take on board the points that have been raised and that she will work with the cross-party group of MSPs to make the progress that is sorely needed.