Chamber and committees

In 2018, you published “Progressing the Human Rights of Children in Scotland: 2018-2021 action plan”, which mentioned children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessments. Has that process been applied to all new legislation and policies that impact on children?

Okay. That is good to hear.

Hold on one second, Mr Stewart. I will direct my next question to you—you can wrap both answers up together. Has the full children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment of the mental health transition and recovery plan been published?

I think that this area is important because I was asking about an impact assessment and about a mental health recovery plan that we would all acknowledge children should be at the heart of.

It is great if you are going to write to the committee, Mr Stewart, but do you publish centrally a list of all the CRWIAs across Government?

Thank you. I have no relevant interests to declare.

Good morning. You will be aware that the Scottish Government stopped fertility treatment for those women who were not fully vaccinated on the day before Christmas eve, with no notice being given. I understand that, on 7 January, the Scottish Government then extended the suspension to include treatment in the private sector.

As I am sure you can imagine, the women who were preparing for treatment in early January were distraught, to be frank, and they went through considerable emotional turmoil. In some cases, women were vaccinated but, because they had caught Covid, they could not get their booster in time and their treatment was cancelled, too. There was a real feeling that the lack of an individual approach, with the blanket ban, was not fair on many of the women who were involved.

Other women have since been in touch because they are genuinely confused. The advice from health professionals at the very start of the Covid pandemic was that pregnant women and those who were expecting to be pregnant within the next three months should not be vaccinated. You and I both know that that advice has since changed, but it strikes me that there is genuine confusion.

I have three questions. First, can you get clinicians to explain to those women who are undergoing fertility treatment how the guidance has changed, and to reassure them? Currently, there is confusion. Secondly, as cases are starting to decline, when will the service be resumed, and will it be conditional? Thirdly, will women who have been caught up in and affected by this issue get an extra cycle of in vitro fertilisation to make up for what has been lost?

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to move amendment 4 and to speak to amendments 4 and 3 in my name. The amendments flow from the evidence that the committee took prior to stage 1 of the bill.

The policy intention behind amendment 4 is straightforward. It extends the eligibility period for women who have arranged surgery for mesh removal. Members will recall that the original cut-off date that was suggested by the Government was 12 July 2021, and the committee was clear that, to capture as many women as possible, we needed to be as generous and flexible with eligibility criteria as possible, and we did not want any unnecessary barriers to be placed in the way of women accessing reimbursement. At the time, the cabinet secretary said that he would give the matter further consideration, so here I am with my two amendments.

Amendments 4 and 3 have the same effect, but achieve the desired outcome in two different ways. It is very much for the committee to decide which it would prefer.

Amendment 4 places a provision in the bill to say that, in order to qualify, any removal surgery must have been arranged before royal assent. Amendment 3 stipulates that the date will be specified in the scheme but that it can be no earlier than the date of royal assent. Ultimately, the difference is whether members want to put the qualifying date in the bill or in the scheme.

I move amendment 4.

An important lesson in politics, as in life, is to quit while you are ahead, and I thank the cabinet secretary for his support.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 3 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

I have a couple of quick questions.

One witness—I cannot remember who—identified poverty and inequality as being among the main barriers to access. I suspect that you would all do that, so I will put my question to Kim Atkinson. Access to facilities for disadvantaged communities has been, and continues to be, a perennial problem. My example is of a local football team in a disadvantaged area. It costs them £100 for one session on a local football pitch that is owned by the local authority. How do we get beyond that, so that we remove barriers to access?

Given that we all agree, is your action plan, with revenue attached, the route in?