Hansard

I am pleased to speak in support of Rona Mackay’s motion. I thank her for securing the debate and for shining a light on aphasia and on the realities that are faced by many people who are impacted by the condition across the country. I join others in welcoming those in the gallery who have come to watch the debate.

As others have said, aphasia is not by any means a rare or marginal condition among stroke survivors. As has also been said, it can impact those with other neurological conditions or those with experience of head injury. Despite its prevalence, we know that it is a condition that remains poorly understood. Too often, it is misinterpreted as a lack of intelligence or engagement, when in fact it is a disorder of language and not of thought.

It is important, therefore, that we have this opportunity to highlight the impact of aphasia. I have to confess that I was very surprised to learn that this is the first occasion in the entire history of the Parliament’s 26-year existence on which we have had a debate dedicated to the subject matter. As Roz McCall suggested, aphasia is a subject to which we have not paid enough attention. Indeed, before this debate, I did a search—I should say that it was fairly rudimentary, so I would not accept this as absolute gospel—and I could find only five mentions of aphasia recorded in the Official Report across all the debates that we have had in the chamber since 1999. It is, therefore, very much to Rona Mackay’s credit that she has brought the debate to the chamber.

Language shapes how we participate in society—it underpins our relationships, our sense of identity and our ability to advocate for ourselves. When aphasia disrupts speech, understanding, reading or writing, it can profoundly affect a person’s independence and confidence. Anyone can see how that that could lead to isolation, loneliness and real challenges to mental health. Those are not abstract harms; they are daily realities for people and their families.

Just yesterday, I was speaking to a constituent about the impact that the after-effects of multiple strokes have had on his wife, and the impact on him as a carer. I recognise the impact that aphasia can have on relationships and social participation. Conversations that once flowed easily can become exhausting or frustrating. Accessing services, returning to work or even carrying out routine tasks can present barriers. When society fails to adapt, stigma and negative treatment can follow. That is why awareness and understanding should not be viewed as some form of optional extra; they are absolutely essential to better supporting people who are impacted by aphasia.

In that context, I very much welcome the outstanding work of Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland—the organisation has been mentioned a number of times, but I will mention it again. For a long time, CHSS has been a trusted partner, providing practical support, advocacy and community-based services for people who are living with stroke-related conditions, and I am very grateful to it for the work that it undertakes.

Improving outcomes for people with aphasia requires more than goodwill; it requires informed systems, NHS boards and public services. Those of us who are policy makers must better understand the condition and embed that understanding in service design and delivery, and in our deliberations in Parliament. Rehabilitation and supported self-management must be accessible, consistent and person centred.

Ultimately, it is about dignity, inclusion and fairness. People who are living with aphasia deserve to be heard, respected and supported to participate fully in our society. This debate—for which I am grateful; I thank Rona Mackay once again—gives Parliament, as an institution, the opportunity to send a clear message: that we recognise the challenges of aphasia, and that we value the contribution of those who are championing the issue and thank them for their campaigning activity. I am glad to have been able to take part in the debate to help do so.