Seòmar agus comataidhean

I really appreciate that intervention. It sounds as if we could put some effort across the Parliament into moving a bit faster for those professions, particularly those that are highlighting to us that they really need this to happen in remote and rural areas.

A debate on rural healthcare cannot be complete without discussing maternity services, and I am sure that other members will raise that. Patients who live in my region of Dumfries and Galloway are all too familiar with the challenges in accessing pathways and services. As has been discussed many times in the chamber, expectant mothers in Stranraer are forced to travel an average of 75 miles or more to deliver their babies. That is unacceptable. The thought of having to make that journey while heavily pregnant makes me nervous, never mind expectant mothers. The Government is aware of that and must do more.

I fully agree with Douglas Ross. He has spoken about that often in the chamber.

On women’s health, accessing something as basic as gynaecological care should not require entire days of travel. The women’s health campaigner Rebecca Wymer has said:

“women make up 51% of Scotland’s population so gynaecology is not specialist care. Gynaecology is a basic human right”.

Therefore, we should have those services in rural areas.

Alcohol consumption remains a prominent problem in Scottish society, but remote and rural communities are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to prevention and support. I hope that we can talk more about that. We should be talking more about the relationship that Scotland has with alcohol.

The Government must listen to the vast number of charities, unions, health boards and patients that are crying out for reform in our rural health services, because one size does not fit all. We are discussing problems with rural NHS services that I think have been exacerbated by poor decision making and governance. We need more honesty about what is actually happening to patients out there. The challenges that are being discussed today are real. In a country that prides itself on universal free healthcare—as I know we all do—it is frankly shocking that this Government has allowed things to get so bad. I hope that we can work to get things done, because the situation is not good enough at the moment.

I know that Emma Harper takes the issue seriously, but we would all agree that it is not safe for women to have to travel across the country on the A75 in that condition. We must be more honest about that.

A recent Audit Scotland report on alcohol and drug services recommended that the Scottish Government increase funding to tackle alcohol-related harm by mid-2025. However, the budget indicates that those services received a real-terms funding cut. How does the Scottish Government respond to Alcohol Focus Scotland’s assessment that

“the budget in its current form is ... lacking in the ambition and determination needed to tackle Scotland’s alcohol emergency”?

I want to go back to childsmile—I know that it has been mentioned, but I have a question for the minister. I have no doubt that she agrees that we should be doing something about the stark health inequalities in dental health, in particular among children. We know that 60.1 per cent of children who are living in the most deprived areas have no obvious dental decay, in comparison with 83.6 per cent in the least deprived areas. That is a marked difference.

The minister spoke of some good work that is going on. However, I have a frustration with many of the things that we talk about, and in this case with the preventative approach for young children in deprived areas in particular. If good work such as childsmile is going on, why are we unable to target that work and share it across different areas so that we can start to make a difference and ensure that the inequality figure gets smaller?

I want to come back on something that Mr Ferris said. I am familiar with Marmot’s work and with the issue of universalism and targeting. We should not just love to get oral health better but see it as our responsibility to get it better because, until we target the inequalities, there will be difficulties across Scotland. I appreciate how much work has gone into improvement, but we need to see ourselves—I refer to MSPs and the people who are in charge of the relevant section—as having a responsibility to take a targeted approach.

You touched on the cross-portfolio stuff, minister. That is really important if we are to get over the line in tackling health inequalities. Thank you very much for your time.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported review of more than 1,000 CT scans, in light of concerns regarding the quality of assessments made by a consultant radiologist. (S6T-02241)

I welcome the immediate action that was taken. However, I seek further clarity on how the discrepancies were allowed to happen, which health boards have been affected and when the affected patients can expect to be notified.

That is very helpful. I am sure that the cabinet secretary recognises that such errors impact on public trust and confidence in the Scottish national radiology reporting service, which is relatively new, having launched in 2020, and the situation has arisen during a time when we seem to have regular scandals in the NHS. How will the Government ensure that lessons are learned and that similar errors do not occur in the future?

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this topic to the chamber.

I applaud the fine work of the Communication Workers Union—the CWU—on the matter, as it continues to boldly stand up for its members against the Post Office’s decisions, which are causing, as we have heard tonight, serious stress and concern for many families just before Christmas, while they are working hard to keep postal services moving. To add to Liam McArthur’s point, I note that they are busy throughout the year.

As we have heard, the decision to close the remaining 115 Crown post office branches across the UK was taken without prior consultation of trade unions, and the CWU informs us that it has not even been given sight of the strategic review document that led to the decision. That is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the decision was deliberately leaked, as we have heard, in order to get ahead of any press or official scrutiny. Post office workers were waking up and reading about the potential end of their jobs in a newspaper or watching it on television. I reiterate that that is simply unacceptable.

Ten of the Crown post offices are in Scotland, where the sector is already heavily depleted, which has left many communities without direct access to a post office. The branches, which are often the larger ones, are a lifeline for many people. However, more local post offices have been closed than most can put up with, and most sometimes struggle to find a place to do business or sort out personal affairs.

Crown post offices provide many services that are not easily accessible and available elsewhere. That is a valuable thing during a time when the high street is being cut to the bone. The decision to close branches is needless and exacerbates existing problems.

Why is it that we have spent the past decade or more stripping out post offices, thereby losing their utility and incredible community links? Has that made the country better off? Have we heard that the decisions to do that have led to greater modernisation and more stable employment? No, that is not what we have heard. It has led to an enormous amount of legal fees and to consultants raking it in, while ordinary working people suffer—as is often the case.

The current decision would decimate the post office network across the UK and will lead to 1,000 jobs being lost, including many in Scotland.

Every week, I, too, speak to constituents who are desperate for a service like the one that the post office used to provide. Not only was the post office an important utility for business and families, but it provided a community hub with staff who would take the time to offer genuine help.

I fear that we are approaching the days when post offices will be quite rare. I have no doubt that workers and the trade unions will be standing against the decision, and I will, of course, be supporting them and their rights. This is no way to treat the people who have shouldered the burden of pressure that has been placed on post office workers for many years. The review must be reconsidered, and I will support the CWU in its work alongside the workforce.

I again thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the matter to the chamber.