Chamber and committees

The minister will recognise that, although the headline figure is welcome, inward investment is not all created equally. The criticism of silicon glen by economists, for example, was that there was a dependent relationship with multinationals that very quickly moved to other countries. Can we ensure that inward investment is analysed to ensure that it is developmental, deep and value-added investment in Scotland, and not simply about buying Scottish companies to asset strip them and take their intellectual property overseas?

Will the member give way?

The First Minister will be aware that I have been contacted—as he will have been—by constituents and firefighters in Glasgow regarding the proposed cuts by the fire service to facilities and provision in the city. As well as the withdrawal of three fire engines, it is proposed that Polmadie station’s dedicated rescue boat crew, which covers the River Clyde, will be removed, and 15 positions will be lost from the station so that, rather than having dedicated 24-hour rescue boat crew cover for the River Clyde, there will be only one crew at Polmadie to cover both the fire engine and rescue boat simultaneously.

Last year alone, 22 river rescues were carried out by the dedicated boat crew. Next week is drowning prevention week. In that spirit, will the First Minister commit to keeping the dedicated life-saving Clyde rescue boat?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

It is absolutely critical. Every member will have received correspondence of that kind, whether it is from new Scots or people who have lived here their entire lives.

One constituent of mine was unable to work until he received a series of tests on his heart. He was out of work for almost a year while he waited on an appointment. When it was chased up for him, it transpired that his referral had never been made. That is shocking.

Ms Mackay, the Green member for Central Scotland, mentioned that waiting well initiatives are taking place. We commend and encourage those, and I thought that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard great evidence on them, but the reality is that they are clearly not working. In every instance that they fail, the cabinet secretary must have a report on his desk so that he can understand the root cause of what went wrong and ensure that resilient measures are put in place to correct it.

We have had many other cases. Another constituent of mine was told in 2020 that she needed knee surgery—

Will the member give way?

—and then was told in 2022 that she might need to wait for another two years for treatment. The orthopaedic recovery plan is to be commended, but that case clearly points to a wider policy failure.

In reality, although we recognise that the Government is facing challenges, we are holding it to account on its own tests, which are set according to the constraints that it has already identified. There is not an excuse. The Government needs to get to grips with the crisis that is engulfing our national health service, or we risk losing it for ever.

It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Labour motion on NHS waiting times.

The Government seems oblivious to the fact that we are holding it to account for tests that it set itself after Brexit and after the Covid-19 pandemic. We do not dispute that those are hugely challenging events and that they continue to exert an impact, but any credible plan would have accounted for that variability and stress, and it would have taken countermeasures and actions accordingly. We just have not seen a dynamic or invigorating approach from the Government to try to get on top of the issue; nor have we seen the degree of honesty that we should have from any responsible Government.

This is not simply an abstract, technocratic exercise; we all have skin in the game. One in seven Scots—these are our neighbours, our family members and our friends; it could be one of us—are at the mercy of a system that is in serious distress. Therefore, it was essential that the motion was brought to the chamber for debate today.

I had hoped that members on the Government benches would have treated the motion with that degree of seriousness. However, I have been very disappointed at the tone that has been adopted. We brought the motion in the spirit of collegiality and in the spirit of trying to come together to resolve a common challenge that our country faces and that one of the most precious institutions that our country has ever built faces.

Public Health Scotland data has shown that 31,498 patients are still waiting more than one year for an out-patient appointment. That is completely unacceptable. As we have heard already from colleagues, 18,000 of our fellow citizens have perished waiting on treatment. That is a scandal, and that cannot be treated with the glibness that it has been in the chamber today.

Many members have referred to the structural and systemic issues that our NHS faces. I think that Dr Gulhane mentioned that there is an issue with delayed discharge and that patient flow is critical to achieving efficient systems. That is a fair observation, and it is something that the Government needs to better understand.

Simply maintaining the status quo is not a neutral option, because people are paying the price for that. We have seen the data that shows that 6,895 people face a wait of more than two years for routine surgery. That is two years in agony, two years being disabled and two years being unable to contribute or care for their relatives. That is just not acceptable, and it casts a very dark shadow over our country. It impacts on all sorts of things, including our economic capacity. It introduces lifelong costs and so ends up being a false economy, as people face lifelong disabilities.

The member for Coatbridge and Chryston referred to A and E departments, but that was a red herring. This is stuff that took place when I was still at school. The reality is that this Government has been in power for my entire adult life, and it is about time that it took responsibility for its own actions in government. This continuing nonsense about things that took place a generation ago is simply not acceptable. The reality is that these decisions were taken on this Government’s watch, and it should have the intellectual and moral honesty to take responsibility for them.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that other fleets of similar vintages operate with much greater resilience than is shown in the CalMac fleet? Why is there not a proper preventative maintenance system in place to ensure greater resilience in the fleet?

I thank the member for giving way. She is making an excellent speech.

Does the member agree that the cost that is associated with incarcerating someone is significant, at an average of around £35,000 a year, and that that presents an opportunity cost, as that money could be much better spent in a way that would achieve much better outcomes?