Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question is on links. Avian influenza has devastated wild bird populations across the country. We know that transmission from birds to humans is rare and that the risk to human health is low, but several people around the world have been infected. Can the Scottish Government advise people on what biosecurity steps people and organisations can take to reduce the spread of avian influenza in Scotland?

I thank the minister for that clarity and his response. This is the second outbreak in the area in recent years. We have been told that avian flu has been detected in two wild birds in Fife and Perth. Farmers across Scotland, particularly in my region of South Scotland, want reassurance that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent future outbreaks, and that high winds and flooding are not weakening those safeguards. Can the minister provide some reassurance on that point?

I thank Foysol Choudhury for bringing the debate to the chamber. I was really interested to see it on the agenda and to hear from members tonight.

We have spoken previously in the chamber about diabetes and diabetes care, so I know that there is enthusiasm among members for advancing the issue, and I know that some members bring expertise to the debate. I hope that Emma Harper knows that I have great respect for the work that she has done on the cross-party group and the way in which she tells her stories.

From a previous role, I, too, have some experience of working with people who have diabetes. I spent many years working as a dietician in the NHS and, in my early career, I covered diabetic clinics along with a specialist diabetic nurse and other members of a multidisciplinary team. Diabetes is a condition that patients manage and live with, and I learned much about the adaptability, resilience and humour of people following the diagnosis of such a life-changing condition.

The work also gave me a lifelong admiration for the dedication of NHS staff in building up relationships with patients who have enormous hurdles to overcome in their many years of treatment. I would like to give a big shout out to all those staff, including those who work in the background in research and medicine development and, as we are discussing tonight, medical technology.

In a previous debate, we spoke about insulin and its relationship to diabetes and we all agreed that it is one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in history. It changed the lives of many millions of people by ensuring that the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was no longer a death sentence and by enabling them to have a life worth living. I still think about our responsibility to make life all that it can be for people and how, as medical technology advances, we must make sure that it works for those who need it most.

As we have heard from members, and in the words of the motion, the Parliament recognises

“the vital importance of medical technology”.

Tonight, we are focusing on real-time continuous glucose monitoring and how it can transform the lives of those who use insulin and help them to manage their condition.

Other members have mentioned the research that is being done at Stanford University, and we understand that people who have diabetes make about 180 more decisions each day about their care and health than those without it. Access to diabetes technology can and will help to reduce that burden. If we want people to live full lives, we have a responsibility to use the technology. Foysol Choudhury explained that eloquently when he shared Jane’s story.

Managing lifelong conditions can take its toll on individuals and their families, so it is important that, as parliamentarians, we acknowledge our role in fighting for services and for having every possible advantage made available to people as quickly as possible, so that they get maximum benefit—and, of course, for those services being made accessible to all.

There are many elements that we could bring to tonight’s debate, including diabetes diagnosis, treatment and life with diabetes in general, but this short debate gives us the chance to raise only one or two issues. In the time that I have left, I want to talk a little bit about tackling the inequalities around diabetes care, particularly the link between inequality and diabetes outcomes.

From years of research on the realities of living with diabetes, particularly for those who come from a more deprived background, we know that those who live in the most deprived homes are up to twice as likely to develop complications from diabetes as those who live in the least deprived homes. The stark figures show that, for many, the reality is that where they were born unfairly lays out their future, particularly when it comes to health and health outcomes.

Technology can play its part in tackling health inequalities. So, as we fight for those technologies to become part of mainstream care, I want us all to reflect on the availability of and access to medical care, treatment and technology. Let us ensure that technology in diabetes care is at the forefront of reducing health inequalities and that it helps to improve the lives of many of our constituents.

It is my view and my party’s view that the overarching priority of the Scottish Parliament should be to tackle, reduce and eradicate child poverty. Child poverty is a huge challenge that our country faces. It limits the opportunities of children in every town and deepens the inequalities that already exist in our society from the second that a child is born.

It should shame us all that child poverty remains as prevalent as it is in our country today. Week in, week out, we discuss the modern, inclusive and progressive Scotland that we think exists, so it is shocking that, in reality, according to some of the most recent estimates, hundreds of thousands of children in Scotland grow up in poverty.

The End Child Poverty coalition briefing indicates that,

“In the period 2020 to 2023, 1 in 4 children in Scotland were growing up in poverty.”

I have made it clear before, and I make it clear once again, that I deplore the previous Tory Government’s attack on working-class people. The Tories are the friends of the rich and show no interest in redistributing wealth to those most in need. The approach that Tory Governments have taken is to benefit those with the most wealth and power. In response to Russell Findlay’s points, I say that the Tories do not seek to change inequality. In fact, they embed it within our society, to ensure that change never comes to those who are most in need.

After 14 years in Government, the Tories must accept their part in the poverty that is felt by our constituents today. I fully agree with the First Minister’s point on austerity, which has decimated the communities that I represent. However, as I often say in the chamber, we must be honest about our responsibility here, in Scotland. John Swinney and First Ministers before him all promised to eradicate child poverty, yet those promises have been broken over the 17 years of SNP Government and SNP budgets. As we have heard, the reality, for young people and their families in Scotland today, is that the Government is set to fail yet again to meet its own targets on child poverty. Yet here it is, taking—I think that it is fair to say—an arrogant approach to today’s debate. It is not seeking to genuinely debate what can be done here in Scotland; rather, it is taking to grandstanding to ensure that division continues.

The Scottish Government knows that my Scottish Labour colleagues and I are working with and seeking to influence the UK Government, yet rather than seeking to work with us on devolved issues, the SNP is looking to divide.

It is my view that we can work together. Let us take women’s health and women’s reproductive health. There has been a good, collaborative approach between members of the Parliament, with all of us seeking to ensure that women can safely access health care. We are all included in discussions with the current women’s health champion for Scotland, and I am glad that I can put on record my thanks to Jenni Minto, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, for that. We need to do more of that and ensure that members and the Government can have genuine debate about how devolved government can work to benefit our constituents.

Earlier in this session of Parliament, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee held an inquiry into health inequalities. We sought honest answers to how to tackle the situation of people living in our most deprived communities, and we did so on a cross-party basis. It is essential that we recognise that as one of the most significant political issues to date that we should address in Parliament.

In a debate on child poverty, it is important to speak to the scale of the problems in health inequalities that we face. If we do not change the trajectory, children who grow up in our poorest communities today will see only increased disadvantage.

I remind members that, in Scotland, women from more affluent areas are more likely to attend screening appointments while women in our most deprived areas have significantly lower attendance rates. Suicide rates in our most deprived areas are higher than they are in our more affluent areas, as are cancer rates. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas has widened. That is shocking and should worry us all. We are talking about areas of devolved responsibility, and we must spend more time in the chamber addressing those issues.

In researching for this debate, I came across a quote from a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

“The patterns of inequality in life expectancy between different places are not a matter of chance or fate, but a reflection of the stuff of life itself”.

To my mind, we are elected to ensure that society is fairer and that barriers to inequality are broken down. We cannot be a country where politicians are letting down its people and we cannot be a country where the poorest pay the price of neglectful government.

We all speak in this chamber of the root causes of poverty. Nowhere are their impacts more acutely felt than in life expectancy and health inequalities. That is why the Government must be more honest about its poor performance in early learning and childcare, the actual outcomes of its policies on the provision of free school meals and affordable housing budgets and, of course, its poor record on local government funding. There can be real change only if some honesty is allowed to be part of the discussion.

I remind the Parliament that poverty and inequality are everyone’s business. I ask members to reflect on working together on all the elements that can be used to change the direction of child poverty in Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government what levels of support are currently available to women experiencing domestic abuse. (S6O-04149)

I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the debate to the chamber and for allowing us all to speak in the last debate of 2024.

It is fair to say that many of our constituents raise with us the issue of potholes on Scotland’s roads. If we knock on doors, do street surgeries or go into our local Co-op, people stop us to say that we should be dealing with potholes. Constituents definitely put the issue at or near the top of the list of improvements that they would like to see in their local community. That anecdotal evidence is backed up by other evidence, some of which we have heard today.

I pay tribute to my colleague Alex Rowley for his work earlier in the year. Following a freedom of information request, he obtained figures on the estimated cost of fixing the country’s local roads in 2024, which had risen to at least £2.5 billion, despite four councils not providing data. For my home council—East Ayrshire Council—the bill totalled £67,000, and the bill for neighbouring South Ayrshire Council totalled £42,500. That money is for pothole repairs. I argue that that is not investment in our transport infrastructure: it is more about patching things up and hoping that there will be a quick fix. That is why constituents are frustrated.

People are frustrated not only because of potholes but because of the time that it takes to repair them. For example, in South Ayrshire, it reportedly took 295 days to complete a work instruction for repairing a local pothole. Members of the public tell me that they are fed up with reporting issues, because it feels as though nothing is ever done and, if something is done, it is a temporary fix that breaks down quite quickly. It feels as though there is no preventative maintenance of drains and verges, with water staying on the surfaces of roads. There is nothing to ensure the longer-term functioning of our road network. That definitely frustrates members of the public.

I want to mention pavements. There are ever-increasing complaints about the safety of pavements because of deterioration and potholes in them. Potholes are very dangerous for users of wheelchairs and people with visual impairments. That adds to the sense of disappointment in communities about the way in which politicians view the look and safety of our roads and streets.

Reports from organisations such as the RAC show that motorists have put fixing potholes at the top of their priority list. I think that that is the first time that the issue has been at the top of that list.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to make two points in closing. First, when researching for the debate, I found that the Scottish Government’s standard line is, “It’s the responsibility of local government.” However, if we are absolutely honest, we know that local government is on its knees in terms of funding so, understandably, it is prioritising front-line services. The Government needs to recognise the impact that potholes have on our constituents, and there needs to be some honesty about how we might help local government. That will be helped by Opposition parties continuing to put pressure on and scrutinising the Government.

Secondly, in truth, we need to think about the debate more in relation to sustainable transport. Transport is part of the community health that we often talk about. We must seek solutions that lessen the load on our roads and that lead to a future in which we have connected travel, with trains and buses, good paths to walk on and opportunities to be less reliant on cars. At the moment, some journeys are almost impossible without having a car. It is important to think about that when we are considering the ways in which we invest in transport infrastructure, including roads, in Scotland.

I thank members for taking part in the debate and, like others, I wish everyone, including our constituents, a really good festive period.

I know that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the minister and the Scottish Government.

The minister will know that, according to Police Scotland, between April and September 2024, the number of domestic abuse crimes rose by 2,028 compared to the same period last year. In addition, through Scottish Women’s Aid, we know that, on average, 25 per cent of women who have suffered economic abuse report that that abuse continues after they leave their abuser.

With that in mind, what is the Government doing—or could it be doing—to protect and support the rising number of women who experience and survive domestic abuse, particularly those who experience economic abuse after they leave?

An Audit Scotland report on whether the 2018 general medical services contract has been working effectively is due to be published in April 2025. Recent workforce statistics have shown that there has been an increase in the GP to patient ratio—currently, there is one GP for every 1,743 patients. Can the Government offer the public and doctors any reassurance that the worsening problem is being addressed?

I know that time is tight, so I will quickly ask about two areas that have been discussed before that need thought around capital investment. The first is reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in NHS buildings. Do you know where we are with that? To the best of your knowledge, will that be addressed?

The other area is the commitment to net zero in the health service. That really changes things for the health service, and is an important aspect of it. How do you feel that capital investment on that will go this year?

I want to ask about alcohol and alcohol harm. It has never been more urgent for the Government to devote sufficient resources to enable the development of a coherent plan of action to prevent people from suffering from the many and varied harms of alcohol. At this stage, it does not feel as if the budget will provide for that. Will the Government commit to looking at ensuring that we get enough resources to tackle alcohol and alcohol harm?