Seòmar agus comataidhean

Today’s debate is of critical importance, and it is right that we continue to use our time in the chamber to debate the topics that match the priorities of the Scottish people. Although the SNP Government might want to hide from its responsibilities and its record when it comes to the NHS, we on the Labour benches have a responsibility to hold ministers to account on behalf of patients and staff who have been let down for too long.

The NHS is my party’s proudest achievement. It is our country’s most beloved asset, and it is an asset that belongs to everyone. When Bevan and Attlee established the NHS, it had the key founding principles of being free at the point of need, being a high-quality employer delivering first-class service and being an institution that would never discriminate when it came to the provision of healthcare. The founding principles of the NHS were important in 1948, and I argue that they are even more important in 2024.

The BMA Scotland chairman, Dr Iain Kennedy, has said:

“We have sleepwalked into our current situation ... We are now seeing the founding principle of the NHS, namely that it should be free at the point of need, threatened. This is the inevitable consequence of years of ducking the hard decisions”.

And yet it continues: in its amendment, the Scottish Government has managed to blame just about every factor other than its inability to meet the challenges facing the NHS today. Its self-congratulatory amendment will not be well received by the hundreds of thousands of Scots from across the country who are on needlessly long waiting lists. Let us be in no doubt that waiting lists are soaring, people are waiting in pain and our NHS is under extreme pressure.

The cabinet secretary knows that I am never fearful of calling out Tory austerity. In this instance, however, the Scottish Government is responsible for using devolved powers for the NHS. Because of serious mismanagement and, I think, broken promises, along with the arrogance of not accepting any responsibility, we are not in a good place for patients or staff here in Scotland’s NHS. The SNP wants to be in power, but it refuses to take responsibility. I think that patients and staff are tired of the endless excuses. Our NHS needs change, and there is a recognition that this tired Government is not up to delivering that change.

I accept that the cabinet secretary is only just in post, but, thanks to his predecessor, the challenge before him is significant. One in seven Scots is on an NHS waiting list, and that number is rising, despite, as we have heard, the First Minister’s commitment to eradicating that, and a treatment time guarantee, which, I will repeat, has been broken 680,000 times. No one underestimates the impact of the pandemic on our health services, and staff agree, but the reality is that, as is outlined in the Labour motion, the guarantee was broken far too many times—320,000 times—before the Covid-19 pandemic.

It is fair to say that key commitments in the NHS recovery plan are not being met. Those issues are being exacerbated by the Scottish Government’s decision to halt NHS capital projects, which are so desperately needed. Not only has the cabinet secretary let down my constituents in South Scotland, who will be waiting longer for the national treatment centre at Ayr, he cannot even get a hospital built in his own back yard. The impact of that decision will be longer and longer waits.

People must see the Government act. Under this Scottish Government, our tremendous NHS staff have been pushed to the limit. Services are at breaking point—

—and the Government must take action.

The roll-out of e-health and digital technology is going at quite a slow pace. Recording of patient data still differs from one health board to another, which hinders progress, and some prescriptions are still being written by hand.

If we are to develop an e-health strategy that is fit for the future, we must see rapid advancement in the streamlining of recording practices across the country, and we must ensure that staff and patients alike are clear on what that progress looks like. Will the cabinet secretary outline in any future e-health strategies how we might address those concerns?

I have a brief supplementary question, which Father Keenan or Dr Pickering might want to answer. I found the discussion about influence interesting. At the point in time that the influence is applied, who is the target of that influence in the various gatherings that have been mentioned? Is the gathering trying to influence lawmakers, or is it trying to influence individuals so that they will make different decisions? Have you thought about that? Does that represent a different way of approaching things?

I, too, take the opportunity to welcome the minister to her role.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and to welcome international women’s day 2024 and its key theme of “Inspire Inclusion”.

It is only right that, at the start of my contribution, I focus on the global context in which we have the debate. Around the world, women face significant challenges, and some of the examples of that this year feel particularly heinous. As is noted in the motion, just over two years ago, Russia began a violent full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the impacts of that on Ukrainian women have been devastating. We know the impact that that has had on the Ukrainian people, who continue to stand so strongly in the face of significant adversity.

We know that the impact on women, in particular, is disproportionate: Ukrainian women have been displaced internally and have had to seek refuge in countries such as our own to protect their, and, in many cases, their children’s safety. These women will always be welcome here for as long as they wish to make Scotland their home, and I hope that, in good time, the option will be there for a safe return to Ukraine for those women who desire it. Scotland and the UK should always be ready to provide safe haven to those people who are fleeing horrific war.

That brings me to the suffering of women in Palestine and Israel. The attacks on 7 October and the reported treatment of Israeli women were deplorable and wholly unacceptable and have rightly been met with widespread condemnation across the world. Following that, we have witnessed all-out war on the Gaza strip and the mass killing of tens of thousands of people, with many more currently starving to death as a result of the bombardment and limited access to aid.

I have raised this many times previously—and the minister mentioned, too—that there are currently around 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Of that number, 40 per cent are considered to be at high risk, which is extremely concerning. Humanitarian aid must be allowed in to provide those women with the support that they so desperately need.

Just yesterday, MSPs and staff had the opportunity to hear from Medical Aid for Palestinians and Oxfam about their experiences from the ground. Of all the points that were raised, the most harrowing was that women in Gaza are giving birth in unsterile conditions, which is extremely dangerous for the mother and the baby. However, substantive issues do not seem to be being taken on and work does not seem to be being done in that area. We must work harder to get women the aid that they need for childbirth. As we mark international women’s day, we cannot forget those women, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they receive the support that they need before it is too late. At this stage, I fear that it might already be too late for so many women and their children.

Closer to home, I absolutely agree with the points that were set out in the motion about the fact that “achieving gender equality” is more important now than perhaps ever before. The challenges that we face remain significant. Violence against women and girls remains at a disturbingly high level, and we have seen in recent times how misogyny is ingrained in some of our largest public bodies. Our fight is by no means over, and we must continue to fight with determination to achieve the equality that we so deeply want.

Women who live in areas of higher levels of deprivation in Scotland perhaps experience inequality more than others, and that is particularly the case in the health sector. In women’s health services, we have inequalities in the uptake of human papillomavirus vaccination and screening programmes. People live longer in good health in the most affluent areas of Scotland compared with those people who live in deprived areas—for women, that gap is quite stark, at 25.7 years. That is unacceptable, and we must all strive to change it.

There is undoubtedly a need for a global approach to protecting human rights, supporting marginalised groups and amplifying the voices of women. However, it would be wrong to have this debate without recognising the challenges that we face on our own doorstep, which we must always think of.

For far too long, women’s health services have not delivered for those women in our most vulnerable communities. That creates inequality between women, which in itself is a challenge that we must work tirelessly to overcome. Without community-based provision of women’s health services that go to the individual rather than depend on the individual going to them, we will never achieve the equality that we speak about today.

International women’s day is an excellent opportunity to unite around a common purpose and to reiterate the calls that we have been making for so many years to encourage men to speak up, be accountable and be part of the fight. However, it also requires us, in this Parliament, to recognise how our decisions can impact equality and to be realistic about the experiences of people in our own country.

I look forward to listening to the contributions to the debate. There are many different angles from which we could all have approached the subject, but it is right that we take the opportunity to discuss the global context, given the extremely concerning events that are unfolding in Ukraine and the middle east.

It is important that we also look closer to home, to our more domestic position, and it is right that we look to progress as much as we can in this country in politics, in education, in the workplace and in other places. The fight ahead for women in Scotland and across the world is not an easy one. It requires the efforts of us all to achieve the equality that is so long overdue. I commit my party to doing what it can to play its role across Parliament to take that fight on.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding an increased windfall tax on the excess profits of large oil and gas companies, in light of reports that the income from any such tax could be used to support households struggling with the cost of living crisis, including in Scotland. (S6O-03155)

I think that it is the Government’s responsibility to answer questions. [Interruption.] Does the minister think that it will be a disappointment for people, but possibly not a surprise, that the Scottish National Party and Green Government has placed itself firmly behind the oil and gas giants on the issue, rather than behind working people?

The policy could create funds to support households that are struggling with the cost of living, but the SNP would rather protect the eye-watering excess profits of those at the very top. Why does the minister think that her party is more aligned with Douglas Ross and the Scottish Conservatives on the issue than with the working people of Scotland?

That is helpful. The next point that I want to make is about the 200m radius. Witnesses have discussed whether operators should be able to increase the size of zones proportionately. There has also been discussion about whether it should be possible to reduce their size. Do you have a view on that?

Some human rights organisations have suggested that operators should have to ensure that the balance is correct and that they should take evidence from staff if there is a continuing impact. How would it play out in the future if operators had to continue to speak to staff and assess the legislation’s impact?

I want to come back to human rights. I value the views that you have given us so far, which have really come through in the questioning.

It is important that we get the balance right for people. Am I right in saying that you feel that the bill provides a proportionate balance between the rights of people to express themselves and protection of people who are accessing healthcare? Would you say that the bill sets that out in a fair way?