Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is welcome that this debate has been brought to the Parliament in Government time. Discussing the NHS and its future is of critical importance, and we must all work together to deliver an NHS that is fit for the 21st century. Having said that, we absolutely cannot ignore the context in which we have the debate, nor the challenges that our NHS faces in 2024. The SNP wants all parties to participate in the discussion about our health service’s future, which is welcome. However, for that to happen, the SNP must recognise its role in causing the seriously challenging position in which the NHS finds itself. Acknowledging one’s own mistakes is a key factor. Acknowledging the challenges resulting from Governments’ own approaches is a key factor.

I know that some SNP back benchers like to discuss the Labour Party, and I, too, enjoy discussing the future Labour Government. However, today’s Labour amendment rightly takes the opportunity to set out what is happening in Scotland. We now have one in seven Scots on waiting lists. I must ask the Government and its back benchers to realise what is happening in Scotland. I do not say that to have a go at the Government; I say it because, to go back to my earlier point, we need to acknowledge the challenges in some of the approaches that have been taken. There are 32 per cent more private hospital admissions compared with 2019, and spending overall per person has reduced.

The member at the back was extremely critical of spending, but we know that, in the early years of the SNP Government, John Swinney did not pass on consequentials from a Labour Government to the Scottish NHS.

I will give way to Mr Whitfield.

The member knows that I love a good Government back bencher, and that I think that it is important for members to challenge their own front benches. However, the member must understand that the NHS will deliver better with a Labour Government—there is absolutely no doubt about that.

To get back to Scotland, we must acknowledge that having patients using the private sector—those who can afford to do so—is creating a two-tier system. Those who can pay can get treatment, and those who cannot are stuck in pain. We know that the Government books beds in the private sector. I say that to be honest about the issue so that we can talk about how we move away from it. A and E waiting times remain stubbornly high, and the SNP does not have a clear plan for how to bring them down. Those are long-term issues that have arisen and are becoming worse. If the Government truly wants to work with us, it needs to be honest about those issues. I therefore hope that it will support the Labour Party amendment so that we can work together.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on. I believe that the cabinet secretary wants to look to the future and that he honestly wants to work together with us on the issue. My view is that health inequalities, which are divisive in nature, are one of the greatest challenges that we face, and I know that the cabinet secretary accepts that point.

From the uptake of cervical screening services to deaths from alcohol and drugs, from childhood obesity to life expectancy, in Scotland, a person’s postcode still determines their health outcomes in 2024. It is an absolute disgrace. For far too many people, a high number of years of poor health followed by early death is a reality. That is a serious issue, and tinkering around the edges will not resolve it.

We need to bring health services to our most deprived and vulnerable communities. I hope that the cabinet secretary will work with us on that. We need to roll out screening at home in areas where uptake is low. We also must invest in alcohol and drug partnerships, and it is excellent to have the minister who has responsibility for that with us. I know that she, too, wants to make sure that we have those services on the ground so that we can challenge some of the issues that face our communities.

We have to invest in health outcomes for our children by extending access to free school meals to tackle hunger and improving opportunities to take up sport. We need to do that by properly supporting our councils. It is essential that we fund local government.

We need to work cross portfolio to make sure that those things can happen.

Yes, of course—understanding the system is really important.

I am happy to take an intervention from the member at the back.

Will the member take an intervention?

Has the member considered some of the questions that have been put to the Scottish Government about its continued use of private beds in the Scottish system? We must think about what is happening in our system and be realistic about that.

I am supposed to be winding up.

I am happy to talk about the matter again. I could talk about it all day. The key point is that, if we want to work together, we need to have some honesty.

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to reduce any health inequalities, specifically in relation to the uptake of cervical cancer screening appointments. (S6O-03496)

As we know from the most recent annual statistics, there was inequality of more than 10 percentage points difference between uptake in the most deprived and least deprived areas. That stark and divisive inequality serves as a reminder that under this Government, sadly, our postcode can still determine our health outcomes. Can the minister update the Parliament on when we might expect wider roll-out of self-sampling—in particular, in communities where uptake of existing screening services is lower?

I thank Rachael Hamilton for starting the debate. Obviously, we have considered the matter at length, given that it was spoken about in the committee’s evidence sessions. We have come to the conclusion that we will support the Government in its position, mainly because responses indicated the matter is important and that a distance of 200m will mean that we will have, for women in Scotland, safe access zones in particular premises, which might be helpful in the future. We are content to continue to support the Government so we will not support amendment 43.