Seòmar agus comataidhean

In my view, the Scottish Government has not shown the necessary determination. We have had delays in land reform, poor industrial relations with teachers and a lack of movement on regressive forms of taxation such as the council tax. We know that 20 families in Scotland own as much wealth as 30 per cent of the rest of the population, and that is unacceptable.

I do not believe that the Scottish Government has shown enough will. It has done things around the edges, and that is what we talk about in this Parliament. However, I hope that I can get some solidarity around the work that we need to do, to make sure that the Scottish Parliament does everything that it can. Emma Roddick and other members know that my point is that, if we believe that that gap is unjust, the Scottish Parliament must do everything that it can to fight for a better economic structure out there in the wider UK and world.

I wonder whether Christine Grahame might mention some of the other things that Labour Governments have done. It is only fair to acknowledge that, in terms of the way in which we treat workers, the fact that we have good terms and conditions is because of what Labour Governments have done. It would only be fair for her to acknowledge that the SNP does not do everything that it commits to.

I hope that Paul McLennan understands that we agree on a lot of points. I wonder whether he would accept that, sometimes, some of the back benchers in this Parliament have to stand up to the Government if we really want to get the full benefit of the things that we can do in the Scottish Parliament.

I am very supportive of the comments that have been made. I would particularly support getting some feedback from organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, because that might give some weight to the fact that, as you say, convener, it does not seem sensible to wait for four years to implement such urgent legislation.

It is good to join the committee. I will pass on your best wishes to Paul. I have nothing to declare at this time.

I am interested in whether the witnesses have specific recommendations from the groups to which they have spoken. Are there two or three specific points that everybody agrees would be helpful?

I am very supportive of that point. A lot of constituents who contact us on this issue are very distressed. There is a lack of urgency in providing that information, which might give people direction and comfort. It is important that we are strong on the fact that we have had delay in this area for far too long.

I, too, thank Ruth Maguire for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am sorry that I am not in the chamber but at home.

I will make a short contribution, because I know that we have a lot of business to get through today. My first point is that it was an absolute honour to co-host, with Ruth Maguire, the drop-in event for MSPs with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust as part of cervical cancer prevention week. It was crucial that members had the opportunity to learn about the statistics in their regions relating to cervical cancer and HPV vaccine availability and uptake, as well as the general work of Jo’s trust and the work that it does in raising awareness across Scotland.

The report that Jo’s trust published last month entitled “We can end cervical cancer: The opportunities and challenges to eliminating cervical cancer in the UK” raises some concerning points. Notably, it highlights that the incidence in Scotland per 100,000 is higher than that in any other part of the United Kingdom and more than three times higher than the WHO target. Therefore, it is important that we take the issue very seriously.

The report also indicates that, as we have heard from many speakers, people in the most deprived areas are, by quite some distance, less likely to attend screening appointments. That is even more concerning given that Jo’s trust tells us that 50 per cent of instances of cervical cancer in the UK are in women who have never been screened. Yet again, we see that health inequalities in Scotland are deep and divisive. I have often raised in the chamber the point that health inequalities are taking lives.

That is why I have repeatedly asked the minister about self-sampling, and why I am pleased that many members have raised that issue tonight. Cancer charities feel that self-sampling is one of the most important issues among the top five priorities for screening programmes across the UK, and that it could help at that level.

In closing, I want to ask the minister about the pilot project in Ayrshire and Arran for people with physical disabilities. We have spoken about the health inequality that exists for women with physical disability. I hope to visit the service there with Jo’s trust, and I hope that the minister will see that as an important step in making sure that we get that right for those women.

In the interests of time, I will close there. I thank everybody for their contributions. I again thank Ruth Maguire, and I thank the minister for responding.

Social care is one of the most pressing issues that the country faces, and I am confronted with the consequences of the failure to deal with it every time I visit a hospital or speak to local community groups in my region.

I think that the number of times that I have spoken on this topic during this parliamentary session might be getting close to double figures, but we are no closer to a resolution. Like many people who work in the sector, I am frustrated by the Government’s lack of meaningful action to address the problem. The Government fails to recognise—as it so often does—that it cannot begin to solve the crisis in the NHS without addressing the vast lack of care capacity. At the heart of that is the need to treat the care workforce better. Care staff are treated as though they were an afterthought, and it does not help that the Government refuses to pay them enough to live on.

If that is not the number 1 priority for the Government, we are very far apart in our assessments of what is going wrong. Scottish Labour has said repeatedly that we must immediately uplift social care pay to £12 per hour, with a plan to increase it to £15. That will bring people into the role and encourage people who left the sector to return, which is important.

Equally, removing non-residential care charges will begin to make care affordable for everyone in Scotland, during and after a burdensome cost of living crisis. The Feeley review recommended that reform, which was in the cabinet secretary’s party manifesto. The Government made promises to the public on which it has not delivered—and it looks like it will never deliver on them. Surely it must do better.

I reiterate that, if we refuse to act on those recommendations, we are not treating the problem with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not here to make repeated political points about the SNP-Green Government—points that I have made time and again in the past, because this Government does not listen. I simply want to recognise that there is general agreement in the Parliament that the NHS is in crisis and we want to do something about it, by implementing recommendations that alleviate the problems, so that the impact can be felt immediately.

Let us pause the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that the plans are for a national care service that is not worthy of the name. We need a complete review of the intended goals, because the bill is not working for people who need care and will certainly not work for the social care workforce.

The public are beginning to see that this Government needs to look at the national care service and act now. Sometimes, it feels to people that Holyrood is not making decisions. The approach that is set out in Scottish Labour’s amendment would provide immediate help by starting to bring back to the caring profession people who had given up on getting a fair pay deal. I implore the Government to take those people seriously before it is too late to do so.

I have one last question about dates and times. Do you have any anticipated dates for when subordinate legislation under that bill might come to us? Will there be peak times when there will be a high level of scrutiny?