Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank our guests for agreeing to speak to us. Much of what I am going to ask about might have been covered but, in the interests of clarity, I will ask my question, which is about the recorded numbers. We know that the Government has to report on anyone who has accessed MAID. Could you give us a sense of where you think the numbers are in terms of what was anticipated prior to the legislation? We see that there was a rise between 2019 and 2022. Have you considered what might have caused that rise? Can you give us some sense of the situation in Canada in terms of the actual numbers? I ask Dr Green to respond first.

Dr Coelho, would you like to respond?

The cabinet secretary will know from public health figures that the gap between our most and least deprived communities remains stubbornly high. Women between the ages of 50 and 70 from our most deprived communities are less likely to attend their routine breast screening appointments and have a 64.2 per cent screening rate, compared to 82.8 per cent in the most affluent communities. Given that I have raised screening inequalities in the chamber on a number of occasions, and given the Government’s commitment to reducing inequalities in cancer screening, will the cabinet secretary agree to bring to the chamber a debate in which he can update us on the status of the equity in screening strategy and allow scrutiny of the Government’s commitment to targeted work in that area?

One of the key provisions in the bill is about safeguarding. The assessing doctor is required to form an opinion on whether the person has been subjected to any pressure. Have there been cases in which anything has been picked up in that regard? Within your structures, is there a robust process to ensure that things are picked up or that there are at least conversations with people who might choose to go down this route?

Professor White, you spoke about training. Are parts of the training about picking up on those elements?

As elected members, we often hear people say that people might wish to go down this road because they feel as though they are a burden to their family or to the medical practitioners who are so caring with them. I want to be clear that, based on what you said earlier, you have robust systems in place to ensure that people know all the options and support that are available in terms of palliative care and can easily access them.

I thank Clare Adamson for bringing the debate to the chamber. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I mark pancreatic cancer awareness month and world pancreatic cancer day, which, as we have heard, takes place on 21 November.

Raising awareness of illnesses such as pancreatic cancer is absolutely pivotal in ensuring early diagnosis and improving prognosis. During my three years in the Parliament, Clare Adamson has truly played her part in that regard, and I thank her for doing so. In one of the very first debates in which I participated, I shared my story of a close family friend’s experience. I have been here for other such debates in the years since, and I appreciate how often Clare Adamson brings the issue to the chamber.

The key point that I will make is that the situation is urgent. Others have mentioned the reasons why, which I will go over, but we must make advancements in the treatment options and address the health inequalities in what is often a very late-diagnosed condition. As we have heard this evening—it is worth saying it again—80 per cent of people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at a late stage and more than half of people die within three months of diagnosis. We can see why much needs to be done to raise awareness of symptoms and that the Government has a huge responsibility to ensure that the national health service is in a position to encourage and support research efforts and to do important work around early diagnosis.

We know that there must be urgent changes to funding in Scotland for research into pancreatic cancer. Many of the briefings make that point to members, and I am sure that the minister will have heard that, too. I hope that she will respond to that point in her closing remarks.

As the motion states, the £600,000 of funding for early diagnosis and treatment is very welcome, but we must have confidence that there will be more and continued funding of the research part of the NHS. I read the briefing notes on that, and I noted that the importance of research to advancements in treatment cannot be overstated. I thank all the researchers and, of course, the patients and families who participate in the research and contribute to that life-saving and valuable work.

I also thank the various organisations that have contacted me and other members ahead of today’s debate with their briefings. They highlight the sheer scale of the challenge that we face and the fact that we must move forward with some urgency on pancreatic cancer care.

Like Miles Briggs, I ask the minister to respond on the potential closure of the national service that is known as the Scot HPB national care pathway. From what I have read in the briefings and in other papers, there does not seem to be any commitment after March 2025. It is important for us to understand what the Government is considering. The concern is that, if the service reverts to regional guidance, regional variation will reappear and health inequalities will continue to worsen, because funding is precarious.

Members will know that I repeatedly raise the issue of health inequalities in the chamber. We know that those in our most deprived communities are more likely to get cancer and, tragically, to die from it. I know that we all agree that that is absolutely unacceptable, so I ask the minister to consider whether we can do anything to make that situation better, because if we can, we should do it. I hope that the minister and the Government are making successful decisions on that point.

I thank Clare Adamson and other fellow members who have contributed to the debate.

Good morning, and thank you for coming to give evidence to the committee.

Dr Cass appeared before the committee and provided a full, professional and caring update to us about her review. The Government has accepted the Cass review in full.

In the statement that the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health made to Parliament, she talked about the work that we need to do to make sure that we are providing the best care for the young people who are affected by that work. She also talked about a task and finish group. Can you update us on what that means and what stage the work is at? Is it complete, or do we still have things that we need to do? What is the timeframe for those things?

It might be helpful if I mention some of the things that I have read. The key recommendations were on healthcare services for young people no longer being provided in adult settings, a move to a distributed network, and an end to self-referrals, with access being available only through clinician-led referrals. Is that part of the work that has been going on?

Given the story that we have just heard, and the fact that, since 2020, no data has been published on breast reconstruction waiting times following mastectomy, will the First Minister commit today to ensuring publication of good-quality data on such waits as soon as possible, so that we can properly see the relevant trends?