Chamber and committees

Apologies to the member. I will not take the intervention.

Let us dive into some facts. Right now, more than 95 per cent of people in Scotland are registered with an NHS dentist. I was shocked to learn that, back in 2007, only 44.3 per cent of people were registered with a dentist. The progress is down to the work of this SNP Government and represents a massive uptake, following years of decline under Labour and Lib Dem Governments.

Examinations and appointments are again up, following the massive backlog that was the result of the global pandemic. To date, the SNP Government has provided more than £150 million of financial support to maintain the capacity and capability of NHS dentistry. I am not sure whether Alex Cole-Hamilton is aware that, in a proactive move after the pandemic, the payment system of fee per item that incentivises NHS dental teams to see patients was reintroduced last April. Public Health Scotland statistics show how the measure has increased patient examination appointments, so that they are back to pre-pandemic levels, allowing more patients to be seen and dental practices to register more patients as they work though the pandemic backlog.

Since the SNP came into office, considerable progress has been made in dental services and oral health improvement. The Scottish Government has removed dental charges for all patients under 26—that is around 600,000 young Scots—as a first step towards scrapping charges for all in Scotland.

Partly because of that policy, our children’s oral health, particularly in deprived communities, is improving dramatically, with the primary 7 group showing better results than ever. The childsmile programme was introduced in nurseries and schools. I witnessed the programme in practice last week on a visit in Troon. Great work is being done.

We have more dentists per head of population. In Scotland, we have 59 dentists per 100,000 in comparison to 43 per 100,000 down south. Do we want more dentists? Yes. However, due to the pandemic, we had a whole year when no dental students qualified.

Immigration could play a key role in tackling the backlog. I await the groans from the Tory benches when I say that the hard, cold fact—and this is not Brexit bingo; this is not a game—is that Brexit has had a significant, detrimental impact on recruitment of health and social care staff.

I thank my colleague Ruth Maguire for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also commend her for recently hosting a drop-in event at the Parliament for Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust and highlighting the end cervical cancer campaign.

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust was set up by James Maxwell in memory of his wife, Jo, who died from cervical cancer at the age of 40 in 1999. Following Jo’s diagnosis in 1995, Jo and James had difficulty in finding good information about every aspect of cervical cancer. It was their hope that one day, everyone would have easy access to the best and most up-to-date information.

Most importantly for Jo, it was her wish that women who were affected by cervical cancer would have the opportunity to communicate with others who were facing similar challenges. It is encouraging that, more than 20 years later, Jo’s legacy still lives on, but there is still work to be done.

Funding from the Scottish Government’s screening inequality fund in 2022 is enabling the charity to offer training, information and support to health boards in Scotland in order to address inequalities in cervical screening uptake. As we have heard, sadly, women from the most deprived areas are less likely to take part in screening, with uptake of only 63 per cent in comparison with 74 per cent in the least deprived areas. As we know, younger women, particularly those aged between 25 and 29, are also less likely to attend screening. No woman should be left behind when it comes to cervical screening.

To mention someone from many years ago, of whom we are all aware, there has been a Jade Goody effect on cervical cancer screening. The reality television star lost her life to cervical cancer in 2009. Her battle was very public, with her diagnosis coming two days after she was set to appear in the Indian version of “Big Brother” in August 2008. Before her TV appearance, she had had tests for symptoms including pain in her legs and heavy bleeding. In September that year, her cancer was deemed life threatening, and she had a radical hysterectomy and started chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A documentary called “Jade’s Cancer Battle” was aired on television at that time.

She died on 22 March 2009. She was only 27, and the mother of two young boys. However, her legacy would prove to be something powerful, as we see if we take a step back. When it was first announced that her cancer was terminal, medical authorities across the whole UK announced a surge in requests from women, particularly young women, for cervical screening.

Jade Goody had the ability to reach those women that some campaigns and awareness drives just could not reach, and her fight brought home the importance of the cervical smear. Her legacy saved lives. Sadly, as time has gone on, that effect has worn off, which is why it is so important that we continue to highlight the importance of screening. It is important that women, young and old, know about the signs and symptoms of cervical cancer and the importance of taking up cervical screening when it is offered. We need to have the conversation continue. Telling personal stories can be difficult, and I applaud the bravery of everybody who is keeping the conversation alive. If it saves one life, it will have been worth it.

For some, the conversation will be a reminder but, for younger women, it might be a new conversation. Therefore, I say to every woman who might be listening to this debate that, when the smear test letter comes through your door, please ensure that you make your appointment. Yes, it can be embarrassing and it can be slightly uncomfortable, but it is over in 10 minutes and it could save your life. One in three women do not attend their smear test, and we must change that. It needs to change if we are going to save lives. Let me tell you the symptoms again: unusual bleeding, and pain in your back, your hips or your legs. Just look out for symptoms that are out of the ordinary.

As previous speakers have mentioned, each year in Scotland, 323 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 95 women lose their lives. However, 93 per cent of cervical cancers are preventable through screening—they just have to be caught in time. Therefore, I say again that, when the letter appears, please do not ignore it and please take time to book your screening, because it could save your life.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on culture organisations in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government levelling up funding. (S6O-01840)

I, of course, welcome any funding that has been given to Scottish organisations, but I agree that this is a matter for the Scottish Government, as the UK Government does not appear to even know what “levelling up” means. Has the Scottish Government received any clarity from the UK Government on what the regulations are for the levelling up fund and on how it foresees them impacting devolved issues?

I thank everybody who has supported the motion and those who are taking part in the debate. I am really looking forward to all contributions.

I lodged the motion for a members’ business debate as a mother and as an elected representative with a genuine, deep concern for our children who are vaping. I believe that, as elected representatives, we have a moral duty to protect constituents where we can, and that the vaping of our children and young people is among the biggest health risks that our youth currently face.

In the past decade or so, vaping has grown significantly as an alternative option to smoking traditional cigarettes. There is a mindset that vaping or smoking electronic cigarettes is safer. We know that it is cheaper. Do not get me wrong: if vaping is a pathway for somebody to give up smoking, that is great, and I fully support that. My issue relates to our children who have never smoked and are taking up vaping as it is deemed to be safer than cigarettes. In my humble opinion, the marketing and advertising of vaping products is targeted at that generation.

Eighteen months ago, there were chocolate-coated nuts and snacks at the till at my local supermarket. Now there are colourful flavoured vapes. In another local supermarket, a huge display of colourful flavoured vapes has just appeared in the health aisle. There are vapes at the tills in pound shops. They are advertised everywhere.

A packet of 20 cigarettes is currently around £12. I can get a vape for £4. That is 600 puffs, which could be the equivalent of 45 cigarettes. Those vapes come in a wide selection of colours and flavours. I have been told that some teenagers co-ordinate their outfits with the colours of vapes. There are thousands of flavours online—watermelon, sweet cherry, banana ice, cherry cola and blueberry are just a few. There are too many flavours to name in this debate. If we had cigarettes with those flavours rather than with a tobacco taste 50 years ago, how popular would they be? We know now in hindsight that those cigarettes still hooked previous generations and caused harmful damage.

In the age of the internet, we have the likes of TikTok influencers showcasing their vape collections and teaching young viewers how to do their best vaping tricks. They make it a hobby and something fun. If anybody doubts that and has access to TikTok, they should do a search on “my first vape”.

Despite it being illegal to sell the devices to under-18s, research indicates a steep rise in underage vaping over the past five years. According to ASH Scotland, the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds who say that they use e-cigarettes has doubled in the past 12 months alone. A new survey, which was conducted by Opinion Matters and was published by Asthma + Lung UK Scotland yesterday, shows that, in 1,000 responses, 85 per cent were concerned about young people vaping, 83 per cent were concerned about the use of vaping products by children and young people in schools, and 82 per cent were concerned about the marketing and promotion of vaping products to children and young people.

There have been claims that there is no evidence of young people taking up vaping, but we all have eyes, and we all see it. Ask the teachers and the kids. They will say exactly how many kids are vaping.

At the beginning of 2022, a freedom of information request by The Courier found that primary 3 children were caught bringing vapes into schools in Fife and Dundee. That is really worrying. I have also heard of primary school children finding used vapes on the ground and picking them up to see how many puffs are left.

Vaping is fairly new, and we do not have an analysis of its long-term impact on lungs. Those are adult lungs—we definitely do not have any analysis of its impact on developing young lungs. The World Health Organization believes that vaping devices are harmful to health and must be regulated. It has stated:

“the evidence is clear that the aerosols of the majority of”

vape products

“contain toxic chemicals, including nicotine and substances that can cause cancer.”

It has stated that their use is

“associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and lung disorders”.

An article in The BMJ stated that children with asthma who were exposed to second-hand vapour at home have a 30 per cent increased risk of an asthma attack. The researchers also pointed out that lung disease and, in the worst-case scenario, deaths have been reported in relation to vaping.

Vapes are not harmless. Behind the colours and the delicious flavours, there is nicotine. As we know, that is the addictive product. The issue is not only the damage done to the lungs of the next generation but the next generation being lured into nicotine addiction.

The problem of vaping and our youth exists not only in Scotland. It is a global concern, and we have seen countries around the world take action. Flavours in vapes’ e-liquids have been banned in Austria and Hungary. Lithuania and Finland have banned all flavours except tobacco. Denmark has banned all flavours except tobacco and menthol. Menthol-flavoured vapes are banned in Estonia, and flavours except tobacco have been banned in the Netherlands as of this month. There are also plans to ban flavours in Spain, Latvia, Slovakia and Ireland. It is interesting that China, which is the biggest global exporter of vapes, has banned flavours domestically in light of concerns about youth vaping, although it still exports flavours around the world.

I would like flavours to be banned from disposable vapes so that they are not as attractive to our younger generation. The minister is aware that I am exploring a member’s bill to pursue that. I welcome the fact that the Greens want disposable vapes to be banned, and the cabinet secretary has confirmed that there will be an environmental assessment of the impact of disposable vapes. However, serious consideration should be given to a health assessment of the impact on those in our younger generation who are vaping.

There are things that we can do to mitigate, such as banning disposable vapes or removing the flavours, but they will take time to go through the whole legislative process. We are talking about a crisis of our children’s health, and we must act now. We do not have time to waste.

There are things that the Scottish Government can do now within its legislative power. Through the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, ministers have powers to restrict the domestic advertising of nicotine vapour products. Vapes could be placed alongside cigarettes, with promotions, flavours, colours and designs being out of view. That is one thing that we could do now to be proactive in protecting our kids.

As a country, we have come far in tackling smoking. We now have a moral obligation to protect our young people and not to undo all the progress that we have made. Across the chamber, regardless of our political colours, we need to come together on this really important issue and do what we can to protect future generations.

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee on our pre-budget scrutiny work. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee and responded to our call for views, which informed our letter to the Government in advance of the publication of the budget documents in December. I know that stage 1 of the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill is coming up, but I think that it is important that we have this debate today to hear how the pre-budget scrutiny work of committees has helped to influence and shape the Scottish Government’s budget.

Our committee agreed to focus its scrutiny on the on-going costs associated with the pandemic, as set out in the Covid-19 strategic framework, and on how the Scottish Government has planned to fund its Covid recovery strategy. We were interested in the read-across between the strategic documents and the Scottish Government’s other fiscal documents such as the resource spending review, the medium-term financial strategy and the “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2022-23”.

Before I go on to talk about our pre-budget work, I would like to say something. Although we are, thankfully, no longer in an emergency situation, for a lot of people, Covid is not over. That includes in particular those who have suffered loss and those who are trying to cope with long Covid, and I offer my sympathies to them. Those people are always at the forefront of our minds in our work on pre-budget scrutiny and on the recovery strategy and the strategic framework, with no exception.

In its pre-budget work, the committee heard evidence on three main themes: Covid recovery and the cost crisis; on-going Covid and pandemic preparedness associated with the strategic framework; and the outcomes-based budgeting and policy evaluation associated with the recovery strategy. The committee also touched on the wellbeing economy and considered the read-across between the Scottish Government’s strategic documents and how they support the Government’s stated aim of achieving a wellbeing economy. I will take those themes in turn.

First, on Covid recovery and the cost crisis, we asked the Government to clarify whether budgetary and inflationary pressures had impacted on its priorities and its ability to deliver on the outcomes as set out in the Covid recovery strategy. As we have already heard in the debate, the Government has confirmed that the cost crisis has indeed had an impact, but it is still committed to making progress towards the shared Covid recovery strategy outcomes. The response to our pre-budget letter also highlighted that the recovery strategy will run up to September 2023.

We asked the Deputy First Minister about that last week, when he came to give evidence on the budget, and he explained that the aim is to mainstream Covid spend across all portfolios. I fully expect the COVID-19 Recovery Committee to be involved in ensuring that that mainstreaming is done effectively.

We also called for more clarity and transparency on funding directed at achieving the priorities and outcomes that are set out in the recovery strategy, and more detail on the evaluation and effectiveness of those funding allocations. I was pleased that the Government agreed that budget transparency is important. Its response highlighted its commitment to the delivery of the national outcomes as set out in the national performance framework and the fact that its budget was set accordingly. This is an area of continued interest to the committee, and I will talk more about it later.

Turning to the on-going Covid costs and the pandemic preparedness associated with the strategic framework, we considered the report of the standing committee on pandemic preparedness and its recommendations, and looked at the budgetary implications of the on-going cost of dealing with Covid. We asked for an assurance that the Government would commit additional resources to implement the strategic framework, if that was required to respond to a new variant of concern or a mutation in the future.

That point was made by a number of witnesses, and the Government has said that it remains alert to the threat that is posed by potential new Covid variants. It also pointed to the plans published by Public Health Scotland that set out the processes that will be undertaken to identify and assess any future risk.

We also heard about the importance of funding the on-going activities in relation to vaccinations, surveillance, testing and personal protective equipment, and were reassured by the Government’s commitment to allocate funds for those measures.

On-going surveillance, in particular, was an issue that we focused on and have since explored further. We wanted to understand how the waste water surveillance played a major part in identifying Covid outbreaks during the pandemic, and how that, and genomic sequencing, can continue to be used in the event of any further outbreak.

We looked at what future investment might be needed in surveillance measures and genomic sequencing for the on-going Covid-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. I am sure that members from all parties would agree that we do not ever want to be in a position in which we are unable to respond to another variant that emerges. It is important that, despite the current fiscal pressures, the Government allocates appropriate funding to pandemic preparedness and on-going surveillance measures.

We heard that good preparedness measures require a baseline level of funding and that project funding is not sustainable in terms of recruitment. With regard to the learning around PPE, we heard that stocks should be actively used rather than being warehoused.

I will turn briefly to the outcomes-based budget and policy evaluation, which is an issue that is of continued interest to us. In considering the funded policies that are contained in the recovery strategy, we were keen to know how the success or otherwise of certain policies can influence future policies and Government budgets. We explored the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Covid-19 recovery dashboard, which was developed to monitor how different countries are performing in the context of recovery. While giving evidence, the Deputy First Minister acknowledged that one of the challenges in deciding public expenditure priorities is assessing the most effective use of public expenditure at any given moment.

In light of the evidence that the committee heard, we recommended that the Government consider the OECD Covid-19 recovery dashboard and explore whether Scotland should adopt a similar approach to monitoring its recovery from the pandemic. Indeed, we considered the OECD dashboard in more detail just last week in advance of our session with the Deputy First Minister. In response, the Government again referred to the national performance framework and its similarities with the dashboard as a tool for measuring recovery through the stated outcomes relating to Scotland’s economy, environment and wellbeing.

Finally on the wellbeing economy—this will have been of interest to other committees—we heard differing views on what exactly constitutes a wellbeing economy and that it is not clear how the national performance framework is used as a policy decision-making tool to help to deliver a wellbeing economy.

I will conclude. It is worth reiterating that one of the core objectives of the budget process is to improve transparency and raise public understanding and awareness of the budget. I believe that our pre-budget scrutiny has achieved that objective in relation to Covid spend.

The Maybole bypass on the A77, which opened in February last year, represented £29 million of Scottish Government investment and was described as “a dream come true” by those who campaigned for it. Does the Scottish Government have any data on, or means of assessing, the difference that the project has made to the experience of road users?

There is someone who could have made a really big difference to farmers in terms of mitigating costs—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead, the UK Government decided that farming businesses should be classified as non-high-energy businesses. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in that decision, the Tories have shown us all what they think of our farmers and our food security?

I am grateful that the Scottish Government saved Prestwick airport in 2013. Over the past decade, more than 4,000 jobs have been supported in the surrounding area, and global companies have been attracted to base themselves at Prestwick, as one of the leading aerospace hubs. The airport was also an integral part of the £80 million Ayrshire growth deal. Although the Government still seeks a buyer for the airport, does the minister agree that it is really important that any such buyer supports the long-term economic vision for the area?

Thank you, Álfrún. That is really helpful. I will move on to Murdo Fraser.