Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank my comrade Mercedes Villalba for bringing this debate to the chamber. I know that it is an area of keen interest for the member, and I think that, in her opening remarks, she made an excellent case for change, as others have done. I hope that the Scottish Government will support her efforts.

For me, the final part of the motion is the simplest to understand, as perhaps the member sitting opposite will agree. It is also one of the most important parts. After all,

“Scotland’s land”

should

“be owned by ... managed for the benefit of”

and belong to

“Scotland’s communities.”

The deconcentration of land ownership and redistribution of it to our communities will put people, not profit, at the centre of land ownership.

As has been mentioned and as we know only too well, 98 per cent of Scotland’s land mass is rural, and it is a matter of concern that community land ownership accounts for only around 3 per cent of the total land area. In my South Scotland region, there are vast rural areas, and it is important that, in our efforts to deconcentrate ownership, we deliver for people and our communities. In a country where young people are not inclined to move to urban areas by default, they should be able to start a career locally, in traditional or different sectors, and make their mark in their own home town without feeling that they have to move away. This is about more than land ownership; it is about equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. It is about equality and fairness, and it is something that we in this Parliament ought to recognise.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the figures that are outlined in today’s motion and which have been quoted by others. In 2013, 50 per cent of all Scotland’s privately owned rural land was owned by just 432 landowners. We cannot accept that the outcome from such a situation will benefit our communities—it is not acceptable or sustainable. I therefore hope that the minister will be supportive of the proposal in the motion; indeed, I note that some of the comments from the Government so far have indicated that it would support moves in this direction.

I note with interest that, in its own community wealth building consultation paper, the Scottish Government has made improved community access to and ownership of land and property one of the five pillars in its efforts to make community wealth building in Scotland a success. I, of course, agree with that, and in that respect, I look to the strong Labour councils in Preston and North Ayrshire, where community wealth building has been a success. At every turn, I see investment and trust being placed in our communities and the skills that we know that we have on our doorstep, and I see action being taken that matches the population’s own ambitions. That is why it is important for land to be owned by its people and communities.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s co-operation thus far, but we are far from the finish line. Communities need more investment, and the requirement for legislation that deconcentrates land ownership to the benefit of our population has never been greater, so we need some urgency around that.

I once again thank my colleague Mercedes Villalba for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank other members who have spoken in support. It is a consultation, and my friend has been so open in asking for all contributions, so I ask members to please contribute to the consultation process so that we can get this right for our populations and our communities.

We know the challenges faced by our rural communities around fuel poverty, transport links and young people’s understanding of where they see themselves. There are opportunities here for rural areas in particular, so I ask members to support the members’ bill or at least participate in the consultation. I thank members for coming to the chamber.

I am interested in the response times that you were talking about and the confidence that the public should have in the newer model that you have. Have you undertaken any evaluation of how those response times are working for patients and their families?

As I am sure that you well know, the public hugely values the service, but there are definite problems in the system, particularly around ambulances being available for people. What key things do you recommend that the committee could ask for or speak to the Scottish Government about with regard to the delays that people have, particularly in life-threatening situations?

Thanks very much.

Good morning. I have quite a specific question about the route through the mental health hub, which constituents have raised with us. When someone who is already known to mental health services phones NHS 24 and is looking to be directed onwards, is that a smooth flow through, or do people have to go through a number of assessments before being linked into the service where they are already known?

Scottish councils have been informed at short notice via the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the same level of funding provided for tackling holiday hunger programmes will not be offered this summer by this Scottish National Party Government. That simply confirms that it is willing to stretch local government budgets further and further.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to matching last year’s funding, to ensure that tackling child poverty and hunger programmes that local councils across Scotland had already planned can go ahead?

I will not take an intervention, thank you. Members need to listen to this. They need to live with the decisions that they make in that regard.

Like others, I was shocked and saddened to hear that more than 18,000 people had died on NHS waiting lists last year. If the trend continues, the figure will be more than 20,000 this year. That is tragic.

If that does anything, it should tell the cabinet secretary and the Government that more of the same simply will not do. We need a plan for reducing waiting lists that supports NHS staff by improving recruitment and retention; by opening up national treatment centres urgently, supported by a highly skilled workforce; and by delivering for patients through action, rather than making promises and failing to follow through. It has become clearer to people every day that this Government, while it is no stranger to a strategy, has a poor relationship with delivery. That must change.

The challenges that we face with waiting lists are 16 years in the making, and they have undoubtedly been worsened in recent years by existing problems. Despite that, however, the NHS workforce is lacking a funded and targeted investment plan. This Government is falling short on reducing waiting lists; it is time that it stepped up and provided a service to our NHS staff and patients.

I appreciate that the SNP has other things to be worried about this week, but Scottish Labour remains firmly focused on the priorities of Scottish people. That is why we are debating the issue of increasing waiting lists, which is impacting so many across the country. Labour was required to bring this important debate to the chamber, as the current Government tries to hide from the necessary business of the day. The Government needs to listen, and to act.

One in seven Scots find themselves on waiting lists today. Many of them have been waiting for months, if not years. Many, like the countless constituents who have been contacting me, are waiting with insufferable pain. Tragically, many have died while waiting.

The Scottish Government can point to the pandemic as a global factor that caused unavoidable challenges; predictably, the cabinet secretary did so. Indeed, we do not disagree—we know that the pandemic exacerbated issues with waiting lists. However, the reality is that it is disingenuous and plainly incorrect to suggest that it was not an issue before, and it is disingenuous and plainly wrong to say today that we are making good progress. I had been told to expect better from this cabinet secretary.

Long waiting lists predate the pandemic. They are a result of Governments avoiding difficult decisions; in Scotland, that is in plain sight. They are a result of a Government that is tired, after 16 years, and that has failed services, staff and patients. Why? To push its own agenda. Let me be clear that our NHS workforce is incredible. The service that they continue to strive to provide daily is of the highest standard, but they are being badly let down and they deserve a lot better.

In relation to debates such as this, we all look at the correspondence that we receive from constituents, who feel helpless. They are in pain, they are suffering and they cannot live the lives that they want to live with their children, friends and families. They feel guilty for being unable to do the things that they used to be able to do, because they are sitting on waiting lists and they have no indication of when their time will come. That is the unfortunate reality of SNP Scotland.

The SNP members at the back of the chamber will not like to hear this, but they know as well as we do that it is a reality; they receive correspondence from constituents, too. Do they scrutinise, or do they accept the excuses? Do they push those on the SNP front benches to do something, or do they clap to drown out the reality?

I, too, thank Stuart McMillan for bringing to the chamber this timely and important debate. To say that we have a liver cancer crisis in Scotland is both patently true and deeply concerning for all of us who have, for decades, been seeing the introduction of various reforms to limit alcohol misuse and obesity that do not go far enough. Progress has been made, but the statistics speak plainly to the damage that has been done, and lives continue to be lost, with all the knock-on effects of that on families across the country.

We know that nine out of 10 cases of liver disease are associated with risk factors that could, with lifestyle change, be preventable; I will come back to our responsibility as legislators on that issue. We need not say any more than simply reiterate the fact that Scotland continues to have the highest mortality rate for liver disease in the UK, and one of the highest rates in Europe. That is not acceptable, and we can never allow it to be seen as such.

To come back to my earlier point about avoidable deaths, I say that I believe that much of the root of the issue is health inequalities. The rate of alcohol-related stays when someone is admitted to hospital is seven times higher in more deprived areas, and the rate of alcohol-specific deaths—as we have heard—is 5.6 times higher. When a person is born in one of the poorest communities in Scotland, they are considerably more likely to suffer serious liver damage over their shorter lifetime than anyone in a better-off community is. That is a plain fact, and it cannot be avoided. If we are to address the problem, we need to be aware of that fact and factor it into any remedies that we look to pursue.

Doing so requires us to understand that alcohol is a toxic substance and that when it is drunk to excess it can, and does, cause lasting damage that results in on-going health problems for people and their families. We are not talking solely about people who are suffering from severe misuse issues—it applies across the board, including to what is sometimes seen as casual or social drinking.

I often wonder whether, if we saw the same levels of alcohol-related problems in richer parts of our towns and cities as we do in the poorer areas, a national emergency would already have been declared, but that seems to be the case—as, I am sure, members would agree—with so many things that we talk about with regard to health inequalities.

When excessive drinking and unhealthy eating are mixed with underlying genetic susceptibility to alcohol and obesity-related disease, we have a recipe for serious ill-health that can blight much—in fact, most—of some people’s adult lives, and can carry forward into other generations. That is why—as, I think, we accept across the parties—a public health response is crucial to making sure that we change those things.

We require serious efforts at all levels of government and we need committed and serious discussions across sectors. I respect the fact that some of that consideration should be UK wide, but we have pinpointed things that can happen here in Scotland to tackle accessibility, promotion of alcohol and it being a key part of advertising in areas including sport and in the wider media. Many younger people are exposed to casual and dangerous drinking in that way. If they have not seen it at home, that might be how they are exposed to normalisation of alcohol and alcohol drinking.

Members may have been at a reception earlier in the session at which we saw that members of the Scottish Youth Parliament had done work on that. It was shocking to hear that people as young as eight can recognise cans of beers and lagers. I certainly would be unable to do so, but there is a wide range that children can recognise. That just shows us how exposed they are, time and again.

Another important point is that public consultation and opinion polling indicate that the public support some measures that we could put in place through a public health response.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, so I will not go any further, but I have appreciated hearing members’ contributions and look forward to hearing from the minister.

I lodged amendment 28 in response to the stage 1 report, which highlighted the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s comments with regard to clarity on the relationship between the patient safety commissioner for Scotland and the broader landscape.

My amendment puts the necessary requirements on

“Each person named in section 15(2)(d)”

to

“co-operate with the Commissioner in the exercise of their respective functions”

and on the commissioner to

“co-operate with each person named in section 15(2)(d) in the exercise of their respective functions.”

I believe that that would be a positive step towards ensuring strong working relationships between the patient safety commissioner and the relevant individuals listed, in order to meet statutory obligations. It also acts on the recommendations that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman made in evidence.

As was mentioned in the stage 1 report, the manner of dealings can vary, but I urge the minister to reconsider amendment 28 as an initial step towards ensuring that the parameters of the relationship are set out and that there is co-operative working across the board in the exercise of statutory obligations. Again, I ask the minister to reconsider her previous comments.