Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Deputy First Minister has said that we have had only a brief opportunity to read the report. However, I have no doubt, from my brief reading of it, that public confidence in the Scottish Government’s decision making will be significantly affected.

Important decisions were made through informal structures, which reduced transparency and, ultimately, accountability. A number of witnesses who were involved in the UK Government’s response to Covid-19 told the inquiry that, in their view, part of the reason for the divergence in approach between the UK Government and the Scottish Government was a desire on the part of the Scottish Government on a number of occasions, for political rather than policy reasons, to adopt measures and language that were different from those adopted by the UK Government.

How does the SNP plan to rebuild the public’s trust in Government after such findings? Can the Deputy First Minister indicate when another statement will be made so that we can scrutinise the issue? Does she accept that that must happen well before the end of the parliamentary session?

I, too, thank Clare Adamson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and for all the work that she has done on pancreatic cancer over this session of Parliament.

I am glad that the Parliament is once again marking pancreatic cancer awareness month and highlighting the importance of greater awareness and timely diagnosis. I welcome the opportunity to contribute—I think that I have contributed in each of the previous annual debates.

It is important to take a moment to reflect on the scale of the illness and the profound impact that it has on many families. Others have mentioned the statistics, so I will not go back over them, but I will say that we must always remember that catching the cancer early dramatically improves the chances of treatment and recovery. We know from the statistics that eight in 10 people are diagnosed at a late stage, which means that they are often diagnosed too late for treatment. That is a tragedy. More than 50 per cent are diagnosed in emergency settings, such as accident and emergency, despite the vast majority of patients visiting their general practitioner multiple times before being diagnosed.

For patients, recognising the symptoms of pancreatic cancer represents a first step in diagnosis, especially in the absence of the early detection tests that others have mentioned. Symptoms can be vague, which can make the cancer really difficult to spot, so the public awareness campaigns that are run by charities and organisations to support early detection are crucial. I, too, thank the various organisations that do that work, and those that have contacted me ahead of today’s debate for their work and for all the helpful briefings. The briefings show the scale of the problem and the challenge ahead; they also show us what we have to work towards.

Other members have mentioned the importance of research and the related challenges and barriers, as well as the important tests that can detect the disease. We need all that work to come together so that we can improve survival rates. I noticed that, in the past 15 years, the five-year survival rate has increased from 3 per cent to 7 per cent. It has not moved at pace, but it shows that we can make a difference by working together, including with other nations.

Before closing, I will take a moment, as I often do, to reflect on health inequalities and their impact on outcomes for our constituents. We know that the detection of cancer in our more deprived communities can be very difficult. In those areas, people interact with health services in a very different way, and we have a responsibility to raise this issue time and again. The latest Public Health Scotland data revealed that the incidence of all cancers was 24 per cent greater in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived areas. Often, that is about early detection and supporting people to get the right advice at the right time.

In previous debates, I have warned about the impact of health inequalities on some of our most vulnerable communities and called for urgent action in that regard. We must do more to empower our communities to speak to healthcare professionals when they need help, and to ensure that a clear and understandable plan is put in place to address any inequalities that people might face.

I thank the guests in the gallery for their attendance and all the members who have contributed to the debate.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to news that public satisfaction with the NHS has dropped to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to the Scottish household survey. (S6F-04472)

When the First Minister’s party first took office in 2007, following eight years of a Labour-led Government, 83 per cent of Scots were satisfied with the NHS. That figure is now just 61 per cent. Does the First Minister agree that a failure to show leadership and very poor decision making have led us to this situation? Given that the Scottish National Party has been in power for almost two decades—almost 20 years—how does he plan to convince the Scottish public that the SNP should be in charge of our most valued public asset, the NHS, for another five years?

I, too, thank Finlay Carson for bringing today’s debate to the chamber, and I was pleased to support his motion. As we have heard, people in rural areas face unique challenges in accessing healthcare. I therefore welcome this debate and the opportunity to highlight the day-to-day realities of those who live in my rural South Scotland region.

Issues have been raised with me not only by my constituents who are patients, but by our hard-working NHS staff. Living in a rural community should not limit people’s access to basic healthcare, as Brian Whittle has mentioned, and there should also be ways of managing more specialist care. However, for many constituents and staff, it is frustrating that things do not run smoothly. Many people in those communities feel disconnected from their healthcare, as services seem to move further and further away, and many of my constituents have told me that they feel a sense of doom, because they cannot see any improvement in rural healthcare.

Last year, we debated the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s findings on remote and rural healthcare, which revealed profound inequalities in access to services and care. That is a really important issue. The report reinforced what has long been known, which is that those communities experience greater inequalities in accessing healthcare compared with those in our more urban and central areas. That is true across health services—including maternity services, which I will mention only briefly, as Scottish Labour highlighted the issue in the chamber just a few weeks ago.

Mothers in Wigtownshire, in my South Scotland region, do not have a dignified service, and it is important that we address that. I know that there are staffing pressures, but women are travelling 70 miles to receive care. Those mothers, their husbands, their partners, their family members and other campaigners say that they are extremely concerned about the difficulties that might arise during that process.

I also want to mention staff recruitment, retention and training, because it is a real concern that has been raised with me. I have asked the Government a number of times about its plans to expand the apprenticeship-type model for healthcare workers, as recommended by the nursing and midwifery task force, which offers a great opportunity to grow skills in our communities. I have talked to many people about that model, which would allow people in rural areas to train, work in and be committed to their local area, whether they live there because they want to or because they cannot, for whatever reason, move away. I have been talking about the issue for five years now, but it does not feel as if it has edged forward at all. Perhaps the minister could come back to it in her closing remarks.

Lastly, I would like to highlight the workforce problems in South Ayrshire. That region might not be what some would traditionally think of as rural or remote, but people in communities such as Girvan feel that things are just becoming worse and worse. In my discussions with constituents and staff at the local hospital, I hear that it is often difficult to recruit and retain staff. These challenges are real for both patients and staff.

The Government might point to on-going work, but the reality is that communities need action and tangible changes for them and their families. What communities need now is delivery, and that is what we would like to hear more about.

The cabinet secretary clearly knows the concerns of local people regarding those roads, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for meeting community campaigners to hear their concerns.

Given the key economic importance of the A77 not only to the south-west of Scotland but to the whole country, does she believe that the figure that she mentions is enough to significantly address the problem and ensure that it will deliver an economic benefit to the south-west?

I know that we are running out of time, but I want to make a point about young people in more rural areas losing out. The lack of connectivity across Government portfolios such as transport is a real issue in my area. I wanted to put that point to the cabinet secretary and to express my hope that we could work together to resolve that for people.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s intervention. Of course, I understand how difficult it is to get time with the Government of the day—I am in an Opposition party. We need to keep moving forward and keep talking.

Although the fishing sector in South Scotland is a small part of the overall Scottish industry compared with major hubs such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh in the north-east, it is a vital component of the coastal and rural communities of my region.

My constituents believe that, in order to maintain the environmental wealth that we have in the south of Scotland, we must begin to see the coast as a delicate ecosystem with varied needs and challenges, from erosion to the loss of seagrass to the changes that the fishing industry brings. We need a thriving coastline in order to preserve not just the local environment but the environment of our whole country, and to provide the boost to the economy that coastal and rural communities require. That is a weighty responsibility, so it is important that the chamber takes the time to treat this issue seriously. It also gives us a reason to work together.

I return to the economy. I will not restate the figures that the cabinet secretary provided, but we know that the fishing industry gives us large amounts of landings and of jobs. It is important that we work with that industry to ensure that that continues.

Fisheries employ more than 20,000 people in Scotland. That is important because fisheries are part of our rural and coastal communities, as others have said. We also know that employment in the industry has decreased by 15 per cent. We need to talk about what we can do about that now.

I have only 38 seconds left to speak. I want to talk about what we need to do. I reiterate that we must work together, but in that we must pay attention to some of the things that we can do in Scotland in our devolved capacity. What will make a difference here and now? From what others have said, we know that we need to look at sustainability. We also need to use the science that the Labour amendment mentions. I hope that that can be supported, because without a move towards the use of that science, we might find that we cannot keep the seas sustainable.

During this parliamentary session, we have had a much greater emphasis on this issue, mostly from Opposition members. I reiterate my gratitude for people working together, participating in the debate and, I hope, changing the trajectory.

I will start with a quote from my colleague Rhoda Grant, who has said before in the chamber:

“We all know that fish know no boundaries and, because of that, negotiations have always taken place on fisheries.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; c 70-1.]

That is a very good place to start. If we are to help to protect the future of our fishing industry, we must learn to negotiate and, of course, work together. It seems to me that the Parliament wants to support the industry and indeed believes that we need to do so. How we work together will make a great deal of difference. The Government motion recognises the need for

“continued investment to build a thriving, sustainable and modern fishing industry, which is of key importance to Scotland’s island and coastal communities and the wider economy”.

I think that we all want to work towards that.

Across the UK, we are deeply fortunate to live on a spectacular and unique island that is furnished with an incredible coastline that, for centuries, has provided us with food, employment and leisure. The environmental wealth that is present across Scotland’s coast is abundant and, without it, our entire culture would be altogether different. I am immensely thankful for that environment. From speaking to my constituents, I know that it is perhaps the thing that they love and value most about the South Scotland region, and that is why I speak in the debate today.

My constituents love the history of the coastal and fishing industry and the environment within which it functions, and they enjoy the chance to improve their towns and economy that comes with the industry. Of course, I recognise that the industry has had complex difficulties over many years in relation to quotas, funding across the UK, Brexit and other worldwide matters that are often turbulent. I think that we can all agree that the fishing industry deserves stability, and it is by working together that we might get that.