Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the cabinet secretary accept that he must take those figures seriously and make sure that those items are in place?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by Prostate Cancer UK regarding reported figures showing that men in Scotland are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer too late for it to be successfully treated than in any other part of the UK. (S6T-01104)

I laid out the figures, which are quite stark. Public Health Scotland data that was released in 2021 highlighted:

“There was convincing evidence that socio-economic deprivation increased the likelihood of being diagnosed with more advanced cancers of the ... prostate.”

In further data, published in 2022, there was a 10 per cent fall in the number of people diagnosed with prostate cancer, which was linked to underdiagnosis caused by the pandemic. It is absolutely essential that the Scottish Government acts decisively to ensure that men across the country are made aware of the options that are available to them in terms of tests, checks and online tools, which can both protect their health and combat the impacts of health inequalities.

Conservative members have to understand that it is necessary for us to nationalise the sleeper. Neil Bibby mentioned that we have always subsidised our railways, and rightly so. As Mark Ruskell said, we want to integrate ourselves into Europe and be part of that service. There is an opportunity for us to do that and we can do it. The privatisation of the railways has been a disaster in the UK and throughout Europe. Other European countries have done much better, having retained public ownership.

The current operator, Serco, is paid by us to run the service while, at the end of the day, we take the risk that is associated with that anyway. It is an incredible situation in which private enterprise can extract fees to run public assets and, if anything goes wrong, just send them back to the public sector anyway.

When the railways across Britain were privatised, we were told that it would increase competition and drive down costs for the consumer. However, there is zero competition and zero risk to the companies while customers are paying increasingly high prices and shouldering the long-term financial burden. That cannot go on.

The sleeper is a fantastic service that should be in public hands. If the Government is serious, it will soon take it back into public hands in the way that has been described.

I thank my comrade Richard Leonard for bringing the debate to the Parliament. As we have heard from members across the chamber, this is an important issue.

The Caledonian sleeper service is one of the jewels of Scotland’s rail infrastructure and represents a transport offering to the public that few other parts of the UK can enjoy. The sleeper has been in operation since 1873, making it 150 years old this year. It holds great memories for many—even Opposition members have mentioned that. It connects Scotland to the rest of the UK and remains in demand to this day, despite what has been said about its present affordability.

Graham Simpson said that bringing this subject to the chamber takes us back in time, but the debate has been about the way in which we sustain transport and bring people back on to our railways as part of properly looking at our carbon footprint.

I associate myself with the comments that Richard Leonard made about the fact that public ownership brings huge benefits to staff and customers, to bring in John Mason’s point. It is important that staff and customers are both seen as being part of the equation.

We should not hand the service back to Serco in June under any circumstances. Now is the right time to bring the sleeper back under public control through a Government-owned company. We have heard in the debate that we can do that. What better way is there to reward the staff of the sleeper service than to bring the service back into a long-term future in public hands? That would be popular.

Along with other members, I thank Stephanie Callaghan for securing this evening’s members’ business debate on circular fashion, which I very much wanted to take part in, as it is a subject that I have had an interest in for many years. In the interests of Maurice Golden’s birthday wishes, I have only a few words to say, so I should not keep everyone.

It was interesting when I spoke to Friends of the Earth this afternoon to hear about how far we have to go in Scotland on the circular economy. I had a very interesting discussion with it about how much we have to do. I hope that all members are very committed to ensuring that we can get this right.

When I was researching for this debate, I read something that really stood out for me:

“The vast majority of consumer fashion is stuck in a linear model with most used clothes perceived as having no value and being disposed of at an ever-increasing frequency ... In recent times modern culture has driven continued increases in oversupply and planned”

throwaway.

“Fast fashion is a linear business model that focuses on a rapid supply chain, working to design, produce and distribute new items of clothing at an accelerated rate.”

Many members have mentioned that. The point that I want to make is that

“This model works due to the low cost of labour”.

Many members have stated that changing fashion trends, purchasing power and consumer demand have an effect on those who work in the industry.

I want to highlight why I have an interest in this debate. I have an interest in low-cost labour, particularly child labour, around the globe. We have to be honest and not kid ourselves. We should not shield consumers and our constituents from the truth.

My interest in the issue stems from a visit that I made to India 30 years ago. Part of a tour on that visit took me to a factory in which tiny children were threading beads for fashion. I was only in my 20s. As I stand here, I can feel what I felt at that moment. A video was produced 30 years later, in 2021, when the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—was in Scotland. There are still tiny children across India threading beads, and that is absolutely unacceptable. The western world has huge responsibility for that.

It was good to bring this debate to the Parliament, and it is good to discuss the issue, but we need to be honest about where we are in the world on it. Unless we can change consumer attitudes towards clothes, purchasing and the things that we have discussed—valuing things and having things made to last—it will be really difficult to shift the industry, which is driven by purchasing, and change the supply chain for the circular economy. We see great examples—it is lovely to see those in the gallery. That can be done, but we need to work hard to make that happen. The cost is the human cost of the fashion industry, and we have to take that seriously.

The motion asks the Parliament to encourage

“the adoption of circular fashion methods”.

I hope that, one day, in Scotland and across the world, the legislation will be clear that we have no option but to manufacture, purchase and recycle in a responsible manner. I hope that that is legislated for. We can save the planet. Let us save our fellow workers and small children across the world and ensure that we change fashion for the better.

When you have had your budget deliberations, have you talked at all about moving towards collective sectoral bargaining? The trade unions say that that one change could make a significant difference to retaining staff, and that would help with budgeting across social care.

The convener asked some general questions at the start about the allocation of pay in the budget. I would like to drill down into nursing and social care pay.

At the committee on 15 November last year, Colin Poolman of the RCN said:

“Social care pay in the health service is, frankly, upsetting”.

He also said:

“It is no surprise that we have a crisis in the social care workforce as well as in the health workforce.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 15 November 2022; c 11.]

Responding to the cabinet secretary and the First Minister’s briefing yesterday, Mr Poolman said that the RCN’s

“previous warnings have not been listened to.”

He reiterated the point that fair pay is fundamental to the retention of the current workforce and to attracting a workforce for the future. For the sake of the NHS and social care, can the cabinet secretary afford not to listen to the serious and real concerns of nurses, given the number who are turning away from the profession? Does he think that nurses are being unreasonable?

I have one final question. When you look at your finances and budgets, what consequences do you think there may be from having to fund the introduction of the national care service? How will that affect pay, terms and conditions in the short and slightly longer term?

May I come back in on social care?