Hansard

The distance between Fife and Troon, where, respectively, Helen Eadie and I live, is probably as great as the distance between her and me politically on almost every issue, but in my time in dealing with her I have never thought her to be anything other than enormously big hearted. She is the convener of the cross-party group on heart disease and stroke, and her commitment to the issue has been sustained over a considerable period of time.

I, too, congratulate Helen Eadie on the motion that she has lodged. If more members had heard some of what she had to say and what has been said subsequently, it would have been to their benefit. I hope that, as some of those members may one day benefit from the work and efforts of the cross-party group, the British Heart Foundation and all the other campaigning groups, they will be a little better informed on the issues at hand.

My contribution will be relatively brief, as many points have been made.

We all celebrate advances in healthcare as they are made. The establishment of the national health service after the war essentially brought equality of access to healthcare to everybody in the United Kingdom.

It is interesting that there are two competing challenges for our generation. One is the enormous responsibility that falls on the health service to cope with our emerging lifestyle conditions and an ageing population. The second is how we respond to the extraordinary advances that are being made in healthcare and the consequences and responsibilities that fall from them.

When he was the Secretary of State for Scotland in the mid-1990s, Michael Forsyth—I have to find a way to bring him into debates sometimes—established a material shift in Scottish cardiac care. It may have been Michael Forsyth who did that, but the change enjoyed cross-party support at the time. Even to those who are not his natural admirers, Voldemort has his redeeming qualities. Fifteen years later, we can see a 60 per cent fall in mortality from cardiac incidents.

I suppose that it could be argued from the national health service’s point of view that that is not a financial success. It may have taken the view—not the individuals in it, but from a bottom line—that if people were not there, they would not represent an on-going cost to the national health service. In celebrating that significant reduction in mortality, the responsibility emerges. Thereafter, the question is: what do we do to provide cardiac rehabilitation to those whose lives have been saved?

There is no dispute or concern in relation to the principle or understanding that we need to make advances in cardiac rehabilitation, but a look at the hard facts suggests that whereas the rates of referral to cardiac rehabilitation for those who have had heart bypass operations are considerable—albeit less than the minimum that we might wish for—across health boards in Scotland there is an underperformance on referrals thereafter. There is also a very considerable underperformance, given where we are today and where we need to be, on affording universality of access to cardiac rehabilitation.

In a way, it is tragic if we save lives but leave people with a deteriorating lifestyle thereafter because we do not offer them the support, advice, education and subsequent intervention to ensure that the life that we have saved is a life that remains meaningful. Within a huge institution such as the health service, it is sometimes difficult to ensure that those cross benefits are achieved.

I support the campaign and the essence of Mrs Eadie’s motion, and I look forward to hearing from the minister on whether, in order to provide an impetus, there needs to be a HEAT target to ensure that material progress is made.

12:56