Chamber and committees

The key piece of information that I gave to Douglas Ross in my previous answer is that we have had a pandemic and, whether he likes to admit it or not, that has had an impact on health and social care services not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom, Europe and the world.

If we look at the situation in relation to the most recent year for which we have a full year’s figures, we see that there has been a reduction in delayed discharge compared with the period that immediately preceded the Covid pandemic. That is a result of not only the dedication of those who work in health and social care, but the interventions that I referenced in my first answer. We will continue to invest in and support policies that are intended to eradicate delayed discharges.

With regard to GP services, I do not think that the experience that was narrated is acceptable, and I am interested in hearing from the particular GP practice about the reasons for that. GPs are working under considerable stress, strain and pressure, as is the entire NHS, which is why we are committed to further increases in funding for GP services and to recruiting more GPs. We will continue to do the hard work of Government to support our national health service.

My final point is that, if it was down to Douglas Ross, those very difficult circumstances in our national health service would be even worse, because tens of millions of pounds—even more money—would have to be taken out of services to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. It is only six weeks since Douglas Ross demanded that we take money out of public services and give tax cuts to the wealthy. No matter the challenges that the NHS is facing, everybody across Scotland will be breathing a sigh of relief because at least the Conservatives are not in government here, in Scotland.

This is an important issue, although it is important to stress that mortality from cancer is reducing overall, which is due to a range of factors, such as better treatments, advances in drugs and technology and, of course, the hard work and dedication of the people who work in our cancer services.

There has been an inequality gap for a considerable time, which we are focused on closing. The factors that drive that are many and varied. Our detect cancer early programme and all the other work that we are doing to promote earlier diagnosis of cancer have a particular focus on inequality; so, too, does all the work that we do to encourage people to adopt behaviours that reduce the risk factors for cancer.

Equality in outcomes is, of course, of driving importance in all this, and that is reflected in all our work on cancer care.

The Government will always—as we have done throughout all the years for which we have been in government—protect our public services to the maximum that is possible within a budget the size of which is largely determined by Westminster. That is the reality.

That commitment can be seen in, for example, the fact that, right now, Scotland has a higher number of police officers than it did at any time during the previous Administration. We have 31 police officers per 10,000 of the population, whereas the figure for England and Wales is just 24. Similarly, when it comes to the fire service, we have more fire officers per head of population than is the case in England and Wales. We have 11.8 per 10,000 of the population; in England, the figure is just 6.2 and, in Wales, it is 10.

The budgetary position that we face as we go forward is really difficult. That is because of decisions that are not in my hands or in the hands of the Scottish Government but in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. If the Conservative Party or any party in the Parliament wants—as we all do—more money to be invested in our public services, it must say where it thinks we should take that money from, or it should join us in asking for much greater financial independence for the Scottish Parliament, so that we are not dependent on decisions that are taken elsewhere.

Yes. Whether it is through the Brexit impact, including on food prices, or the impact of the mini-budget on mortgages, it is people across the country who are paying the price now for Tory economic incompetence. Households and businesses will bear the cost of the former Prime Minister’s mistakes for months—possibly years—and we do not yet know what the current Prime Minister will do in relation to tax rises and spending cuts.

That is the reality for Scotland now—it is getting worse, not better. So, yes, I entirely agree that Scotland’s prosperity can best be secured by Scotland becoming an independent country. It is because the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats also recognise that, and recognise that the people of Scotland will see that, that they remain so intent on blocking the democratic choice of Scotland.

If memory serves me correctly, I made a similar point to that in First Minister’s question time a couple weeks ago, before the October recess.

We will work with the health service to ensure that anybody in a position such as the one just narrated does get help. It would not be acceptable for any child or adult to end up in care because rising energy costs made it impossible for them to use the equipment that supported them to stay in their own homes. We will work to ensure, as far as we can, that that support is available.

However, let us not gloss over the fact—Jackie Baillie was right to mention it—that the UK Government needs to provide targeted help to people for energy costs. That is one of the reasons why we need increased budgets for this session of Parliament—so that we can pass that money on to public services such as the national health service, to help them to deal with the inflationary pressures, of which this is only one. We will do everything in our power to help people in the kind of situation that we have just heard about.

We will always look at how we report figures, first, in a way that is as transparent as possible, but also in a way that reflects the changing pattern of care. For example, as part of the urgent and unscheduled care collaborative, we are looking at more scheduled appointments for accident and emergency. Of course, how figures are reported always has to take account of that.

However, we have not changed how accident and emergency waiting time statistics are reported. I will be corrected if I am wrong on this but, from memory, I do not think that they have changed since we took office. Of course, we report them weekly, which is different from what happens in other Administrations across the United Kingdom, where I think that they are only reported on a monthly basis. There is transparency about this and we will always look at how we improve it.

It is a challenging situation. The statistics will fluctuate week on week, but if we look at the statistics that have been published for the most recent week, we see that fewer people waited more than four hours than had been the case at any point over the previous month. We also saw the numbers of waits over eight hours and over 12 hours come down. That is a result of the hard work of those on the front line, but also the actions that we are taking to support their efforts.

As I said earlier, if other parties think that there are actions that could be taken and that we are not taking, we will always listen to that. However, we never hear that from Labour members. They lodged a motion—it was debated in the Parliament yesterday—about the health service that did not even mention the fact that we have been living through a global pandemic. When I listen to Labour members, I am not sure that they are really interested in the health service; rather, they are just interested in making political points.

Although our accident and emergency units are under significant pressure, they are still the best performing, by a significant margin, of any in the UK. That is the first point.

Secondly, I deeply appreciate the efforts of staff, which is one of the reasons why we pay our health service staff more than those in any other part of the UK and, right now, are offering a higher pay deal for this year than in any other part of the UK.

Next, it is because the issue is so serious—whenever we talk about the NHS, we are talking about people’s lives—that it is important to take it seriously and look at all the factors. That is why it is reasonable to suggest that, when Labour members come to the chamber to debate the NHS and pretend that the pandemic did not happen and is not one of the main reasons why we see so many of these pressures, they are not taking the issue as seriously as they should be.

We will continue to take the actions around staffing, funding and redesigning care to support our health service through this. We—the health secretary, the entire Government and I—will focus on that each and every day. That is what people have put their trust in this Government to do and it is what we will get on with and continue to do.

It is because I am focusing on people, businesses and communities and what is best for them, their wellbeing and their prosperity that I want to see Scotland become independent—in charge of our own affairs and our own destiny, not continuing to be dragged down the wrong path by Westminster Governments. That is the reality. I want to have a referendum to give the people of Scotland that choice.

It is interesting—is it not?—that Douglas Ross is happy to come to this chamber and debate these matters, but he is not prepared to go and debate them with the people of Scotland. If Douglas Ross really believed that the Scottish people were going to reject independence, he would be clamouring for a referendum. The fact that he wants to block one speaks volumes.

However, I am not sure that we should put much store on anything that Douglas Ross has to say. Let me just reflect on the past few weeks in the life of Douglas Ross, the leader—for now—of the Scottish Conservative Party. He called on Boris Johnson to resign, then he U-turned. He called on Boris Johnson to resign again, then he U-turned again. He demanded that I follow the mini-budget, then he applauded Liz Truss for scrapping the mini-budget. He voted for fracking in England; now he welcomes the fact that the fracking ban has been reinstated in England. Just last week, or the week before, he said that Liz Truss would win the next general election, yet days later he welcomed the resignation of Liz Truss. Today, he backs Rishi Sunak; who knows what Douglas Ross’s position will be this time next week.

The situation in accident and emergency is challenging, but it is because of the actions that we are taking to employ more staff and put more money into the national health service—the £50 million urgent and unscheduled care collaborative, for example—that we will see progress on A and E waiting times. In last week’s figures, for example, we saw a 14 per cent reduction in waits over eight hours. We also saw the numbers waiting over 12 hours come down and performance against the four-hour waiting times target increase.

There is much work to be done. We are going into a very challenging winter period, which is why hospitals and health boards across the country are working hard to plan for winter, and this Government will continue to support them. Anas Sarwar is absolutely right to raise these issues, but what is always missing from Labour’s contribution on these matters is any suggestions about what should be done differently.

We are taking the actions that require to be taken and we will continue to do so to support our national health service now, over this winter and beyond.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but that is a mischaracterisation of what the MP in question said. I do not think that it serves the anti-racist cause—to which all of us in this chamber are utterly committed—to try to manufacture divisions between us on those issues.

The fact of the matter is that any decent person welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom has its first Hindu Prime Minister. The point that was being made was that, notwithstanding that, we will continue to have political disagreements, because I disagree with much of what Rishi Sunak stands for as a Conservative. [Interruption.]