Seòmar agus comataidhean

One issue that is not listed in the motion is the failure of successive UK Governments in management of the economy. That is of fundamental relevance in a debate about the cost of living crisis and the people who will bear the brunt of it, many of whom are pensioners. I go back to Harold Wilson devaluing the pound in the 1960s and to Tony Benn trashing alternative green energy wave power in favour of nuclear power—although he later recanted.

As for oil and gas, the UK Government sold it off cheap to international companies and only Shetland negotiated benefits for itself. Norway launched its own national company and now also leads in green energy. The oil off Scotland’s shores was squandered by successive UK Governments. In 2020, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund was worth £923 billion—£170,000 for every Norwegian—and in that same year it gained £8 billion in value. That is some rainy-day fund.

The UK has no oil fund. Zilch. The banks’ collapse in 2008 led to the creature called quantitative easing—otherwise known as printing money. That cash was supposed to trickle down to us, but instead it flooded to those who have substantial assets—the people who are already wealthy.

Then, Covid came along. The UK Government has had to write off more than £9 billion that was spent on useless personal protective equipment contracts, which were often divvied out to Tory pals.

The UK Government was already borrowing; now it has to borrow more. The UK national debt now stands at more than 100 per cent of GDP—in other words, we are up to our ears in debt and, with interest charges, the debt is increasing hourly. Norway is the polar opposite. It does not have to borrow. It was able to ride out the banks’ collapse, Covid and even spiralling energy costs by introducing a universal scheme to help consumers. Norway had the cash—unlike the Tory Government, which is simply deferring some costs that we will pay for later.

That is the context: squandering our assets and embedding inequalities in our society, in which for decades the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. That matters. Pensioner poverty is not new. Women whose working lives have often been interrupted by motherhood and caring responsibilities do not even receive the measly basic pension.

I would like to raise the issue of financial help for people who qualify, through Care and Repair Scotland, for help in installing heat and smoke alarms. In part of Midlothian, in my constituency, there is no Care and Repair service. The council says that it has nothing to do with it and has directed me, on behalf of constituents, to approach Care and Repair Scotland. Not surprisingly, Care and Repair Scotland’s phone line is constantly engaged and emails go unanswered. What can my constituents do?

I have only a very short time.

In my time in the Scottish Parliament—more than 20 years—the pension credit system has failed constantly, with 40 per cent of the people who are entitled to it not claiming it because of the system’s complexities. However, that pension credit opens the door to other benefits, including a free TV licence for people over 75—but only if they are on pension credit. What a tawdry act it was to remove universal pensioner access to the free licence during the pandemic, when pensioners were isolated in their homes.

The hiking of energy costs impacts on those who are less mobile and confined indoors, many of whom are pensioners. Food prices are rising, which is a nightmare for pensioners on fixed incomes for whom food is often more costly because they are purchasing for one.

The Scottish Government is trying to mitigate that, but I am often disappointed by Labour because they seem to just go along with mitigating Tory policies. I want those policies to be radically reformed, which cannot be done in London. It must be done here in Edinburgh, where we have the skills, experience and social democratic values to run the economy—not ruin it—to invest in our natural resources and to distribute them through a fair tax system that recognises that we judge a nation by how it treats its more vulnerable and elderly people. To Paul Sweeney, I say this. That means one thing only: independence, with straightforward competence over Scotland’s economy and just distribution of our wealth.

I congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing this timeous debate. Covid has dominated the health agenda for some two years, and that has had a devastating impact on cancer diagnosis and care, as well on other serious, life-threatening illnesses.

It cannot be said often enough that one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. I also echo the statement that when someone suffers from cancer, it affects their entire family and their colleagues. Treatments have improved, early diagnosis had improved and progress has been made on research. We have come on strides in decades, but “cancer” is still a very scary word.

It is obvious that the impact of Covid has led to the postponement of treatment, diagnosis and follow-up examinations. There will hardly be a family that has not been impacted by that fact with stress and anxiety, and by the possibility that the delay might have increased the spread of the cancer, as Jackie Baillie referred to when she spoke of stage 4 cancers being reported at A and E. Therefore, it remains crucial that we all keep Covid at bay to allow the NHS to treat those with life-threatening illnesses.

I want to talk about inequalities in people coming forward. Early diagnosis remains an issue; there is no doubt that in deprived areas and in some cultural communities there is a hesitancy about coming forward. We must take the screening to the people. Travelling breast cancer screening, which was brought to supermarkets, office car parks and nurseries, was excellent. The bowel screening programme, which I have also used, was another excellent thing. People talk to one another about such things, and there is nothing like one-to-one encouragement.

However, the fear that we feel when we hear the word “cancer” knows no class. One of the biggest issues is delay. Delay is dangerous; it is better to find out your diagnosis, so that you can prevent cells from turning into cancer or prevent cancerous cells from spreading, than to put your head in the sand. We should remember the statistics: one in two of us will suffer from cancer. Not one of us in the chamber is invincible.

Diagnosis and treatment is one thing, but emotional and psychological support for the person who has been diagnosed and their family is crucial—as is financial support, which Jackie Baillie also referred to. Organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Support have contacts on their websites for financial support and emotional support, and the local citizens advice bureaux and the local politician can help if you cannot find the information for yourself. I commend the websites of Citizens Advice Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support.

The possibility that you may have cancer is very scary. You start by worrying about the day-to-day things in life, such as the next food shop or taking the dog for a walk, then suddenly you are at A and E. Next, you have a barium meal, MRI scans and a meeting with someone called an oncologist—that is another scary word. Can I tell you something, though? That is better than delaying. Fear is not your friend. Do not put it off. If people take anything from this debate, I hope that it is that if they think that they might have something serious that could be cancer, they speak to someone and get it checked. That is my key message.

I preface my comment by saying that I am not promoting intergenerational wars, but older people—I declare an interest in that regard—not only have missed exercise but are often still understandably cautious about being out and about in public. They are losing confidence and becoming isolated. Will the minister also give that issue consideration? I am talking about exercise and not sport, to which I am a stranger.

NHS Borders has substantial staff absences directly because of Covid, as is the case elsewhere, so it has asked the public to ease pressure on accident and emergency services and not to attend unless doing so is absolutely necessary—for example, when somebody has severe breathing difficulties or severe bleeding. Does the First Minister agree with NHS Borders about that? Does she agree that the public should access expert advice from alternatives, if that is appropriate, such as community pharmacies and opticians?

As the cabinet secretary is aware, I wrote to her last year to raise many of the concerns that have been iterated today, so I welcome her statement. However, £200 is an optimistic figure, even for just the kit. Some people are paying £500 for supply and fit for a two-up, two-down property.

How can vulnerable and elderly people access the financial support from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that the cabinet secretary mentioned? I was not aware that it was providing such support.

I note those mitigations, but added to the misery of skyrocketing energy bills are the five per cent increase in the cost of living, the £20 cut to universal credit and the national insurance hike, which all push more Scots into poverty and desperation. All those issues are reserved to Westminster, but the impact and fallout lands on our devolved public services. Does the First Minister agree that only with independence and full power over our economy could we prevent that economic tsunami? While I am at it, I invite Douglas Ross to join us in that, because I am sure that he would have a better political future in an independent Scotland.

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government can provide to people struggling to pay their energy bills. (S6F-00662)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has taken to prevent the casual purchase of pets for Christmas. (S6O-00586)