Seòmar agus comataidhean

The member may know that I attended the same event, which gave us some excellent food for thought about how we might move the economy forward and how we might encourage people and communities to be part of what we might describe as business, but which, through community wealth building, lets them be in charge of their own areas. Members will know that I am extremely positive about those ideas. The example was given of North Ayrshire Council leader Joe Cullinane. He has taken steps that I view as bold, but, in his view, he is just being fair about how we should run the economy for communities.

Where Emma Roddick and I disagree is that, in my view, leaving the UK is not the way to reduce income inequality. I suggest that delivering a Labour Government at Westminster—which would repeal anti-trade-union legislation, invest in services and communities and offer fairer jobs to people—would be a better way to achieve solidarity in how we run communities in the UK. Those jobs would be well-paid jobs in which workers, unlike under the current Scottish and UK Governments, would be treated with the respect that they deserve.

Indeed, before the cost of living crisis, the cost of living in more rural communities was already substantially higher than it was in their urban counterparts, yet the Scottish Government has continued to do little for those communities. Yesterday, Emma Roddick and Fergus Ewing highlighted that the Highlands have been deprived of transport links that they were promised in relation to connectivity around the A9.

I thank Emma Roddick for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome her contribution. The idea that stood out in it and that has motivated me for my entire life is that we live in a poor society with some very rich people in it.

The wealth divide across the UK, including in Scotland, is absolutely shocking.

Emma Roddick is right to highlight the scale of income inequality in the UK relative to that in other countries in Europe. That has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the Tory-made cost of living crisis, which has made the poor poorer while multimillionaires record eye-watering profits. We cannot get away from that. There are eye-watering profits to be made and there is money in the system. We hear about that every day, and it is something that we must challenge. Wealth can and should be redistributed, and there are acknowledged fair, just and green ways to do that.

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.