Starmer urged to engage with Scotland over Gaza evacuations
But Mr Swinney claims to have received no response from the Prime Minister.
In a statement to the PA news agency, Mr Swinney said: 'It is deeply saddening that so far the UK Government has refused to even enter into a dialogue about medical evacuations for children in Gaza who, without proper medical attention, will be left to die.
'That is the frank reality of life in Gaza under Israeli bombardment and blockade.
'The healthcare system in Gaza is on the brink of total collapse, with surgeons working day and night under artillery fire, with inadequate supplies and often no electricity.
'We know that many hospitals have been targeted and decimated by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces).'
The First Minister added that Scotland is prepared 'to do what is required to save the lives of as many of these kids as we can'.
His initial call came after a meeting with children's charity Unicef, prompting him to declare a 'race against time' to help children in need of urgent medical care.
'But we can't do so without the support of the Labour Government to get the children through the UK visa system and into Scotland,' he said.
'The suffering, torment and killing of the people of Gaza has gone on for far too long.
'I urge the Prime Minister to urgently engage with the Scottish Government on this issue so we can save as many young lives as we can.'
A spokeswoman for the UK Government said: 'Since the start of the conflict, UK support has provided essential healthcare to over 430,000 people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
'We have helped several children with complex paediatric conditions access privately funded medical care in the UK, supporting an initiative by Project Pure Hope.
'We have been clear the situation in Gaza is intolerable and that there must be an immediate ceasefire.
'We urge Israel to let vital humanitarian aid in and allow Gazans to receive urgent healthcare, including allowing the sick and wounded to temporarily leave the Gaza Strip to receive treatment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Groundbreaking cancer trial to recruit patients within the NHS
A new immunotherapy drug trial for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer, is now recruiting patients in the NHS. The trial follows a previous study where patient Ben Trotman's tumour vanished, and he has shown no signs of the disease for over two years, a rare outcome for glioblastoma. The NHS study will enrol 16 patients over 18 months, who will receive the immunotherapy drug ipilimumab before standard treatment. The trial was established in memory of Baroness Margaret McDonagh, who died from the disease, and was funded by over £1 million raised by her sister, Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP. Led by Consultant Medical Oncologist Dr Paul Mulholland, the trial aims to build on previous findings and offers significant hope for patients with this aggressive cancer. Dad's aggressive brain cancer vanishes after taking new drug
Glasgow Times
41 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
UK Government to cut support for special educational needs
The latest concern is the UK Government's plans to cut support for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in English schools. In Scotland, SEND is akin to our funding for additional support needs (ASN) for children and young people in education. For every £1billion of cuts in England, the impact on the Scottish budget would be approximately £93million. READ MORE: 'Prime Glasgow gem' hits the market in 'rare opportunity' for buyers For example, when the Chancellor sought to remove the winter fuel payment (WFP) from most pensioners to save £1.5bn, this resulted in a consequential loss of £140m for Scotland. That policy was largely U-turned. English local authorities have accumulated a £3.3bn deficit in their 'high needs' education budgets, according to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last December. Under English law, persons in education up to the age of 25 can seek education, health and care plans (EHCP) to identify the additional support required to meet their SEND at school. The number of EHCPs has increased annually since they were introduced, rising by 71% from 253,679 in 2018 to 434,354 last year, according to the Department for Education. The equivalent to EHCPs in Scotland is the coordinated support plan (CSP). Generally, children and young people with complex or multiple ASN will require a CSP. Last year, 248,448 pupils were recorded as having ASN in Scotland, including autism, dyslexia or a mental health problem, in contrast with 140,542 a decade ago. READ MORE: Cat found in minibus engine revealed as 'master escape artist' after this incident And yet, counter-intuitively, the number of pupils with a CSP dropped by nearly two-thirds. In 2014, there were 3128 pupils with a CSP, but this fell by 61% to 1215 last year. That's a reduction from 2.2% to 0.4% of those with additional support needs. If anything, these statistics strongly suggest there is a need for more funding and investment in ASN in Scotland. The possibility of Barnett formula cuts from the UK Government would make no sense at all. The House of Commons rises today for the summer recess. The White Paper on SEND reform in England was due to be published earlier this year, but has been delayed. We'll need to wait until the autumn to discover if these disability support cuts go ahead. Some of the possibilities mooted include restricting SEND support to those aged 18 or less. There might be a replacement of EHCPs altogether with something completely different. Wales has phased in a new additional learning needs (ALN) system. This is a single statutory scheme known as an individual development plan (IDP), designed to encourage collaboration with children and parents in the planning process. Only schools or local authorities can apply for IDPs, and not young people or their parents. READ MORE: Poundland bosses confirm Scottish store will close next month Scotland's ASN system is right to place children, young people and parents at its heart. Having a legal right to request a CSP enables the rights to additional support to become a reality in practice. It's unlikely Scotland would follow suit with the UK Government's policies here, but the potential for funding cuts must be a worry. That said, we've seen major U-turns on the WFP and the welfare reform bill in the last couple of months. Could Sir Kier Starmer's proposed SEND bill be the next big U-turn?
