Rachael Hamilton
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, declaring for me my entry in the register of members’ interests after her statement on non-domestic rates on Tuesday, I failed to do so myself.”
“I am very concerned about this bill. First, the UK Parliament expedited the bill—it was fast-tracked—yet it confers huge powers on UK Government ministers not only to intervene in a business and take operational control, but to make a business’s failure to comply a criminal offence. This is a serious piece of legislation.”
“Time is running out, and some of Scotland’s businesses are being worn to the bone by rising rates. High streets are also being hollowed out. Will the Scottish Government consider a pause on the collection of non-domestic rates while it sorts out the glitch in the software system? What is the definition of “rapid”?”
“Our commitment to the industry is clear through ministers’ ongoing involvement in the UK steel council, as well as our role in and input to the development and publication of the recent UK steel strategy. This has always been—and will continue to be— a Government that takes action.”
“Members will have seen in UK minister Chris McDonald’s recent written statement that the UK Government “is strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.” I suggest that thi…”
“I hope that the member understands that we have sought to act in good faith by keeping the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee informed and by ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, at the very least, the matter of legislative consent through the debate that we are having this afternoon.”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Rachael Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“How does excluding trans women from women’s spaces keep women and girls safe? Rachael Hamilton: Lorna Slater’s views on single-sex spaces and protecting women are as poorly thought-out as her deposit return scheme. They are confusing and aggressive. Under the SNP Government, we have seen a reckless disregard for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in Scotland’s hospitals, schools and other public settings. Let us be clear: single- sex spaces are legal. The Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows for the provision of single-sex services where it is necessary and proportionate. John Swinney himself has admitted that and that the law is on the side of women. The problem is that the SNP Government refuses to enforce it.”
“In 2021, in response to a question on gender reform, Nicola Sturgeon shocked those watching by saying that women’s concerns were “not valid”. Those irresponsible comments sparked fury, and here we are again, being questioned about protecting more than 50 per cent of the population and about the fundamental importance of the protection of single-sex spaces for women and girls in our public sector. Under the SNP Government— Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention? Rachael Hamilton: I have not said anything yet, but yes. Lorna Slater: You have, in fact, because you have asserted— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Lorna Slater: Sorry. The member has associated protecting single-sex spaces—as in excluding trans people from single-sex spaces— with reducing harm to women and girls.”
“We recognise that it is legislation for everyone, as it covers age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It sets out the personal characteristics that are protected by the law and the behaviour that is unlawful. It protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fairer and more equal society.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Shirley-Anne Somerville: The Scottish Government has always sought to debate this topic with sensitivity and compassion based on evidence and the rule of law. That is how ministers will respond today. I remind all members that there are on-going judicial proceedings that relate to the debate and that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on those. The Scottish Government is committed to and fully upholds the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear in our support for the separate and single- sex exceptions in the act, which can allow for people to be excluded when that is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.”
“There has been an on-going series of work all over the system to increase awareness among women and health professionals and to tighten up the referral pathway to ensure that women are appropriately, rapidly and promptly referred into the system. As I said, though, people are waiting too long for gynaecology appointments, and we have invested extra money to try to improve that situation. National Health Service (Pay Negotiations) 5.”
“In its 2021 manifesto, the Scottish National Party promised to reduce endometriosis diagnosis times to less than 12 months by the end of 2025, yet waiting times are still eight and a half years. Following the publication of the women’s health plan report, will that target be met? Maree Todd: I am aware that women are still waiting too long for an endometriosis diagnosis. We have discussed in the chamber that a definitive diagnosis requires an invasive laparoscopy test, which is not appropriate at the immediate first presentation. There is a process to work towards a presumptive diagnosis and then on to the invasive test that can confirm whether endometriosis is present. There is no doubt that women are waiting too long.”
“Douglas Ross is right. In Eyemouth, aggressive gulls have attacked young children and they are a blight on businesses that are trying to trade in difficult conditions. The issue is that the licensing scheme is impractical. Can the minister look at the licensing scheme itself? How can he support communities that are looking for a strategic approach to controlling gulls through management plans, improved signage and gull-proof bins? Jim Fairlie: As I have already said in response to Douglas Ross and Mark Ruskell, I am more than happy to look at what we can do collectively in order to find a solution to the issue. However, directly issuing licences to kill gulls is not the only answer. Inheritance Tax System Change (Potential Impact on Agriculture) 4.”
“My constituent has been told that, based on the current outpatient waiting list, he is required to wait 59 weeks for an orthopaedic appointment. The Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Ms Hamilton, but is your question in relation to question 4? Rachael Hamilton: Oh, no. Well, the First Minister will have got the idea. The Presiding Officer: We will get to general constituency supplementaries later. I call”
“Only the Scottish Conservatives believe that we need an energy mix and are listening to the many voices from the real world, not this cloud-cuckoo-land of anti-science nonsense. I move amendment S6M-16657.3, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert: “recognises the importance of renewable energy in Scotland’s future, but believes that a balanced energy mix, including investment in new nuclear power, such as small modular reactors, is essential to ensuring a secure, clean and affordable energy source by reducing the country’s reliance on foreign energy and creating a reliable energy supply for the UK; acknowledges that nuclear power is a proven, low-carbon energy source that operates independently of weather conditions, complementing the variability of renewables and reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels; notes that, while renewables will play a central role in Scotland’s energy transition, they alone cannot provide the constant, stable supply required to meet demand; acknowledges that Scotland’s oil and gas sector has been a cornerstone of the UK’s energy security and economy for decades and will continue to play a crucial role in providing reliable energy, supporting skilled jobs and driving investment in clean energy innovation; recognises the vital contribution of energy companies in leading the transition to a cleaner future through investments in emerging technologies that will underpin net zero goals while maintaining energy resilience; notes that, whilst new renewable and electrical infrastructure is needed, the right of communities to object must be respected, with wind turbines, battery energy storage systems, pylons and other infrastructure only being built where it has the express consent of residents; calls for an energy strategy that embraces renewables, nuclear and the managed use of domestic oil and gas to ensure affordable, stable and low- carbon energy for Scotland’s households and businesses, and welcomes the economic and employment opportunities that a broad-based energy mix will bring to Scotland.” 15:31”
“Instead, this Government is intent on using the debate to score cheap political points rather than actually deal with—[Interruption.] Are SNP members laughing at those communities? They are here to see them. [Interruption.] Does the minister think that that is funny? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden, please resume your seat. I remind those in the public gallery that this is a meeting in public, not a public meeting. You should not be participating in the debate. Mr Lumsden, please start to bring your remarks to a close. Douglas Lumsden: It is shameful that the minister is laughing at the people who have come down here to protest today. [Interruption.] Only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up for the oil and gas sector.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Thank you, Presiding Officer. What Kevin Stewart does not understand is that, if we build nuclear power stations close to where the demand is, we negate the need for pylons. [Interruption.] Obviously, he has not got a clue about the electricity market. At a time of international uncertainty, we should be securing our energy supplies for the future with a credible mix of sources. This Government is intent on closing doors to viable options, based on far left-wing ideologies that hold little credible science. We should be producing our own oil and gas in the short term and investing in new technologies such as small nuclear reactors. We should be building our renewables sector, but we should also be listening to and working with communities to mitigate and properly compensate.”
“However, this anti- science devolved Government wants to turn its back on all of that. I will give way briefly to Kevin Stewart. Kevin Stewart: Can Mr Lumsden explain how the electricity would flow from the proposed nuclear power stations that he wants to see to people’s homes across the country? Does he recognise that pylons play a part in the movement of electricity from nuclear power stations as well as from elsewhere? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before Mr Lumsden resumes, I say to members that I realise that this debate is going to excite a degree of emotion and passion—that is entirely predictable and, indeed, not undesirable—but I ask members to listen to the member who has the floor instead of shouting from a sedentary position. Douglas Lumsden, please continue. I can give you the time back.”
“Not only does this Government want to erect pylons in our communities, but it wants to remove residents’ right to object via the planning system, watering down the voices of our residents and removing the right to a public inquiry. Kevin Stewart: Will Mr Lumsden give way? Douglas Lumsden: Not yet. This is one of the most important issues that we can and should address in this chamber, and I am genuinely pleased that the Government has brought this business to Parliament today. We need more discussion about our energy future and the price that many of our communities are having to pay. Nuclear power should have a huge part to play in our energy future and would negate much of the need to have monster pylons ruining our countryside, because we could produce energy closer to where it is required.”
“Douglas Lumsden: I hope that the Government does not overturn it, because it needs to listen to communities. There are communities here today, so maybe it can listen to them later. There are all those questions, but no one—no one—from this Government is prepared to meet community members, look them in the eye and hear their concerns. As I said, some of them are here today, so the Government still has the opportunity. We know that the cabinet secretary has not met them or heard their concerns but that she has, meanwhile, met the companies that want to build those monster pylons. When he was asked about that by Tess White last year, the First Minister was sure that ministers would meet communities, but no minister has had the bottle to do that. It is shameful.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: They want to know why undergrounding and offshoring seems to be discounted by both Governments and why the Scottish Government is content to use planning powers to block new nuclear but will not use the same powers to stop the desecration of our countryside. I will give way to Rachael Hamilton. [Interruption.] SNP members can give way to some of their own colleagues. Rachael Hamilton: Earlier today, it was announced that an application for a wind farm of 52 turbines in the Scottish Borders will go to a public inquiry before Scottish ministers decide its fate. Does Douglas Lumsden share my concern that communities are not put at the heart of decision making? Is it not the case that this Scottish Government will overturn community opposition because of its blind pursuit of net zero?”
“In the conflict environment in Ukraine, they play a pivotal role in ensuring that people in Ukraine can properly defend themselves from Russian aggression. We welcome their participation in our economy, and they will be able to pursue their dialogue with the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for defence procurement. As I said in my response to Russell Findlay, I have a long-standing view that we should not possess nuclear weapons, and nothing in the current environment persuades me to change that view.”
“The statement from the First Minister rightly acknowledges the danger of division in our society. We all want a path to peace, but President Trump’s recent decision has dealt a bitter blow to the people of Ukraine. In light of the withdrawal of US military aid, does the First Minister accept that, at times of peril such as this, Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, can play a crucial role in efforts to support Ukraine with our world-leading defence sector base? In the interests of global security, will he now drop his party’s call to scrap Trident? The First Minister: A number of companies in Scotland are involved in the manufacture of military equipment. Some of that military equipment is manufactured for our use here, and a lot of it is exported to other countries. Those companies make an important economic contribution to Scotland.”
“I am absolutely delighted that, after months of pressure from MSPs in the Borders— including my friend and colleague Bluetooth Christine Grahame—up to £5 million has been released by the Labour Government for a feasibility study on the transformational extension of the Borders railway. Does the First Minister recognise how transformational that will be for my constituents and for the Borders economy?”
“Will Stuart McMillan take an intervention? Stuart McMillan: I am sorry—I took an intervention earlier. I therefore welcome the fact that Scottish taxes are forecast to raise £24.6 billion in 2025-26. That is £1.7 billion more than they would have raised if Scotland had followed UK policy on tax, and it is £777 million higher than was forecast in December 2023. That is partly due to increased income tax revenue, which is a result of average earnings growing faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. This is a good budget that delivers for our constituents. The electorate will know who is on their side with this budget, so those who do not support it will need to own their failure to deliver for the people of Scotland. 16:53”
“Does the cabinet secretary have full confidence that all public sector bodies in Scotland, including NHS Scotland, are complying with the requirements that are set out in the Equality Act 2010 to produce an equality impact assessment in relation to the provision of single- sex spaces—yes or no? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Once again, for the benefit of Rachael Hamilton, I note that we are very, very committed to working with the EHRC. There is a role for the Government and a role for the commission in that, as I said in my earlier answer. The EHRC is the statutory regulator for equality in Scotland. It promotes and enforces compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and provides guidance on these very matters. We look forward to working with the commission and to meeting it in due course to discuss these matters in detail.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the application of equalities legislation, what its position is on the provision of single-sex spaces in public sector buildings, including hospitals. (S6O-04344)”
“That means better policing resources, more rural patrols and tougher action against organised crime groups.”
“That was a significant step forward, but more must be done to strengthen crime prevention efforts here in Scotland. We have effective tools at our disposal. For example, the construction and agricultural equipment security and registration scheme— CESAR—uses unique markings and tracking devices and has been highly successful in deterring theft in England and Wales, yet uptake for it in Scotland remains lower. Other security measures, such as immobilisers, personal identification number-protected GPS systems and mechanical deterrents, have also proven effective. Why are such protections not more widely encouraged and supported in Scotland? The Scottish Government has a clear opportunity to engage with industry experts, Police Scotland and the victims of those crimes to develop stronger preventative strategies.”
“For example, if a farmer in the Borders has their tractor stolen, it could be sold on in Glasgow or used in further criminal activity elsewhere in Scotland or across the United Kingdom. When thieves strip GPS systems from farm machinery in Aberdeenshire, it affects food production that supplies all our supermarkets. This type of crime has a ripple effect right across the United Kingdom, impacting supply chains, businesses and consumers. Other parts of the UK have taken decisive action to prevent equipment theft, but the Scottish National Party Government is lagging behind. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 was passed by the UK Parliament with cross-party support. It introduced tighter regulations to prevent the theft and resale of machinery ranging from tools to tractors.”
“Behind those figures are real people—farmers, businesses and families—who are left counting the cost, not just financially but emotionally and operationally. The nature of rural crime is changing. It is no longer just opportunistic theft. Ninety-one per cent of respondents to a survey by NFU Mutual believe that rural crime is becoming more organised and sophisticated. Criminal gangs are systematically targeting agricultural machinery, construction equipment, power tools and even the GPS systems that are vital for modern precision farming. Such thefts not only lead to financial losses; they disrupt work, threaten food production and undermine the safety and security of rural communities. Let me be clear that this is not just a rural issue.”
“I am pleased to open the debate on the rising threat of rural crime and its devastating impact on communities across Scotland. I thank my colleagues for listening. Rural crime is not just a problem for farmers and others who live in the countryside. It affects the whole of Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands, and from Aberdeenshire to Ayrshire, and even urban areas, where stolen equipment is often sold on or used for criminal activity. The figures are stark. According to the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, the cost of rural crime in Scotland rose by 34.9 per cent between 2022 and 2023, reaching a staggering £1.8 million. That is part of a wider United Kingdom trend, with the total cost of rural crime now sitting at £58.8 million.”
“It refused to embrace gene editing, which could revolutionise Scottish farming and boost our agriculture sector, choosing instead to be different for the sake of it, at the expense of Scotland’s farmers and food producers. It also chose political posturing when the UK took decisive action to ban XL bullies, simply to be contrarians, only to, embarrassingly, U-turn later—[Interruption.]—yes, embarrassingly U-turn later,”
“It rushed the bill through Parliament and it left the UK Government with no choice but to act to protect legal consistency across the United Kingdom and to protect the rights and protections of women. That was not about devolution; it was about responsible governance and ensuring that laws passed in Scotland do not have unintended consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. Even Labour, which voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, has since admitted that the UK Government was right to step in. We know that the SNP is obsessed with divergence from the rest of the UK, even when it is not in Scotland’s interests.”
“The real threat to Scotland’s economy is not the IMA but the SNP’s relentless pursuit of separation, which would devastate our economy, cut off vital markets and create even more uncertainty for businesses and workers. The SNP claims that the UK Government’s use of a section 35 order for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was an attack on devolution. That is entirely misleading. Kate Forbes has not answered my colleague Douglas Ross’s question as to whether she would have supported the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill or the section 35 order, which was essential to protect women’s spaces and maintain their protections. This Government ignored those concerns about women’s protections.”
“It is important that farmers, traders and businesses have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom, which they can have through the principles of mutual recognition and non- discrimination. Kate Forbes knows that absolutely. The IMA is absolutely crucial to protecting Scottish jobs, to our economy and to ensuring that trade flows freely. However, rather than recognise those economic benefits, as we have just heard, the SNP claims that the act is undermining devolution. The internal market act does not take away powers from the Scottish Parliament; it ensures that we can operate freely without unnecessary trade barriers.”
“She quotes NFU Scotland, but it is 100 per cent behind protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom. Sixty per cent of our trade is with the rest of the UK, which is more than our trade with Europe. Kate Forbes: It is very kind of the member to accept my second intervention. Before the IMA was passed, the Scottish Crofting Federation said that it feared that “the proposed legislation would lead to a race to the bottom, threatening our high standards in food, environment and animal welfare, thus damaging the image of Scottish produce.” Its words were proven true, were they not? Rachael Hamilton: It is this Government that is undermining democracy. It is this Government that is trying to put up a barrier to trade with the rest of the UK.”
“That was evident during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in June. Farmers are still to receive any further detail on the support within that framework. That is not the behaviour of a Government that values democracy. The Scottish Government’s contempt for parliamentary scrutiny has never been more apparent than it was yesterday, when it whipped SNP members to refuse Parliament the opportunity to rightly scrutinise the provision of single-sex spaces. It is not protecting devolution; it is dismantling accountability. One example of where parliamentary scrutiny must be upheld relates to the internal market act. I completely disagree with Kate Forbes—the legislation is crucial to protecting Scottish businesses and jobs.”
“The Government needs to look no further than itself when it comes to the erosion of Scottish parliamentary powers. Time after time, it has absconded from its duty and refused to allow proper scrutiny in the chamber. In some circumstances, it is a case of policy by press release, without any opportunity for any of us to scrutinise its announcements. Increasingly, the Scottish Government uses framework bills, as well as Henry VIII powers, which has allowed it to circumvent the robust and proper scrutiny that should be fundamental to Parliament’s role. Instead of presenting developed policies, it introduces skeleton framework bills, leaving the crucial detail to be attached later through secondary legislation. That means far less scrutiny and transparency.”
“Kate Forbes: I hope that Rachael Hamilton understands that the act has an impact on all the issues that she has just identified. However, my question is more fundamental. I understand that Rachael Hamilton and I might disagree on this issue, but does she at least think that Labour should stand by its words and its commitment of a year ago to repeal the act? Rachael Hamilton: Labour is in a complete pickle. It does not stand for change and it does not stand for hope. Scotland has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The problem is not a lack of powers but the Scottish Government’s failure to use those powers effectively. As I said, the Scottish Government already has control of health, education, transport, justice and the economy, yet in every one of those areas outcomes are getting worse and worse on its watch.”
“Here we go again, debating the so-called protection of the Scottish Parliament’s powers. This is the second time this session that the Scottish National Party has brought forward a grievance-led debate on the subject, rather than focusing on the pressing issues that matter to the people of Scotland. The last time that we had this debate, nothing changed, and nothing will change after today’s debate except that, once again, valuable parliamentary time will have been wasted when we could have been addressing— Kate Forbes rose— Rachael Hamilton: If Kate Forbes can tell me why we are not discussing health, education and all the issues of crime on which the Government is failing Scotland’s population, I will take her intervention.”
“Health and Social Care 14:26 The Deputy Presiding Officer: The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is an awful lot of interest in asking supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in both those and the responses. “Disclosure: Kids on the Psychiatric Ward” 1.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice. We all want there to be factual and correct records in the Official Report. Jim Fairlie stated that Scottish dairy numbers have risen, but my colleague Craig Hoy said in good faith that the Scottish Dairy Cattle Association has said that, over the past 10 years, those numbers have fallen by 24 per cent. Through the Official Report, could the minister make reference to the figures that he is talking about, so that we can all support the dairy industry? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Hamilton, but I think that you know that that is not a point of order. You have made your point but you have reduced the time that is available for questions on the next portfolio, which is health and social care. We will have a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change.”
“If Rachael Hamilton wants to follow up with me in more detail on the development that she mentioned, I will be more than happy to look into the specific points that she has raised. However, such applications normally go through a rigorous process. I would expect there to be community engagement and involvement as part of that process, and I would expect that any potential developer would take the issues that have been raised very seriously. Again, if Rachael Hamilton wants to follow up with me in writing, I will be more than happy to look at the matter.”
“A forestry grant scheme that has been developed by EJD Forestry Ltd has been proposed for an area near Morebattle in my constituency. The community is very concerned about EJD Forestry’s intention to use the land for carbon credits for corporate entity use. It is also concerned about visual impact, biodiversity loss and the lack of benefit to the community, including jobs. Community views are likely to be disregarded, as they are being disregarded across Scotland right now. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the Scottish National Party policy of the right tree in the right place, or is that yet another broken promise? Mairi Gougeon: I agree with the right tree in the right place.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: I am just closing. I hope that GB Energy will build on the success that we have had in Scotland and grow the economy in the right way to create the green jobs that are needed to meet our energy needs going forward. For those reasons, on balance, we will support the LCM at decision time. 17:23”
“That includes the professionals who break bad news, the staff who take care of women following a confirmed miscarriage and the third sector organisations that look after women and their families. I also thank the people with lived experience who have fought so hard to bring about the change. Finally, I thank everyone in the chamber for their speeches. I look forward to continuing the discussion. Great British Energy Bill”
“I am so pleased that Beatrice Wishart talked about the northern star ward at NHS Shetland’s Gilbert Bain hospital. It is a star. I hope that other health boards can see that, review it and work towards matching that standard. I am grateful to everyone for their input to this important debate. I am also grateful for the hard work that the chairs of the working groups have undertaken, for their leadership and for the time that they have given to ensure that the framework for miscarriage care in Scotland and the progesterone pathway are as strong as they can be. They will make a difference to the lives of women who go through miscarriage or threatened miscarriage in future. I am deeply grateful to the professionals who take care of women and their families every day in Scotland following a miscarriage.”
“Those are other ways in which we are looking at improving knowledge across Scotland and, perhaps, finding some solutions. Brian Whittle: One thing that strikes me, which was not discussed much during the debate, is that, after miscarriage, and especially after ectopic pregnancy, there can be a significant impact on fertility. Is there a way in which we can make sure that the physical impact on fertility of both of those can be linked to in vitro fertilisation? How do we make those part of the process? Jenni Minto: That is quite a wide-ranging question. I recognise exactly the point that he makes about fertility and ectopic pregnancy. There is a pathway and a framework for that—I am very happy to get more information and come back to the member on that.”
“I would like to go further than that—I am still arguing to go further—but I am so pleased that I have got that £1.5 million to allocate as appropriate. We will ask NHS boards to assess what their services are delivering now and how we can progress that support. Very close work is happening between my officials and NHS boards on that. It is one of the conversations that we may have at a future meeting with officials and, I hope, with Professor Justine Craig, our chief midwifery officer. Bob Doris raised a point about research. The Scottish Government works very closely with Tommy’s, which is a leader in miscarriage research. We meet regularly for discussions including on on-going research and clinical trials. The chief scientist in the Scottish Government also works to support and increase the level of high- quality research in Scotland.”
“Monica Lennon: I agree that the antidote to stigma is compassion, love and care. A trauma- informed approach does not happen by chance. I have had a look at the framework and I am pleased that trauma-informed support is mentioned throughout it. How can the minister reassure the Parliament that there will be investment in training and education, not just for the workforce in our maternity wards but for those working in primary care, and to ensure that, as others have mentioned, we reach workplaces, homes and communities? Jenni Minto: I was about to move on to that. As I said earlier, I am delighted to announce that the Scottish Government has agreed £1.5 million of funding to support miscarriage care.”
“When I read the Official Report of that debate, I was struck by the frequent use of the word “stigma”. I agree with Rachael Hamilton that the men in the chamber today have shown their compassion and understanding of the situation. The fact that they have been able to talk about the situations that they have personally experienced or that they recognise from their constituents is incredibly important. I thank them very much for doing so. Douglas Ross gave us the quote: “you’re the midwife no-one wants to meet but I’m really glad I did.” I am fairly sure that I heard that story when I was at Dr Gray’s hospital. It shows the compassion that we need from all our healthcare staff. I hope that the framework that we have released today gives health boards the structure to ensure that there is support for their staff.”
“Brian Whittle and others raised mental health. I touched on the meetings that I have had with Held in Our Hearts and the help at home that it provides here in Lothian and in NHS Highland. That organisation recognises and understands that women and families need support at the appropriate time. The women whom I met who had received that support were clear that the personal phone call that they got from Held in Our Hearts staff or volunteers had helped their mental health and wellbeing and—if “coming to terms” is not quite the right phrase to use—their ability to find a path through their baby loss. That is why I was pleased to be able to agree funding for Held in Our Hearts in the current financial year and in the following year. Bob Doris and Fulton MacGregor both referred to Shona Robison’s debate in the Parliament a couple of years ago.”
“It is an absolute privilege to listen to her constituents and to understand how she can make a difference. Speaking personally, one of my constituents came to me and described the situation that she ended up in, having to travel to a hospital where she was in the same space as women who were about to give birth, and the impact that that had on her and her partner. That has stuck with me and has been my leading light, as Louise Caldwell has been for Monica Lennon and Beatrice Wishart. It is a privilege to hear such stories and to know that we can try to make a difference. I hope and believe that the work that we have been doing to improve miscarriage support in Scotland will move in that direction. I therefore thank everyone in the chamber for the tone of the debate and for raising their points.”
“Finally, I want to summarise a number of areas that I believe are really important with regard to this issue. They are: consistent provision; separate spaces; better mental health and bereavement support; improved access to treatment in every region; and better data collection. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jenni Minto to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. If the minister could take us up to 5 o’clock, that would be grand. 16:51 Jenni Minto: The debate this afternoon has again highlighted how vital it is to prioritise the healthcare needs of women. I thank every member who has shared their personal miscarriage or stillbirth story this afternoon and those who have shared their constituents’ journeys. I have spoken to Monica Lennon about this previously.”
“It is important that, as Jean Turner, executive director of the Scotland Patients Association stressed, we recognise that psychological support can be as much a priority as physical care for women who are experiencing miscarriage. When I was considering what to cover in my speech, one of the things that I wanted to highlight was rural access. As many members know, I live and work in, and represent people from, a rural area. More than 90 per cent of women in Caithness are forced to make a 210-mile round trip to Inverness to access maternity services, and women in Dumfries and Galloway have to travel 70 miles because maternity services are centralised. As other members have said, I have not had time to read the report, but I hope that it will address the issues that women are having while travelling for care.”