Chamber and committees

In general terms, I agree with all of that. I absolutely stand full square behind trans people and against the discrimination, stigma and prejudice that they face in the on-going battle for equality, to which they have as much entitlement as anyone else in our society.

There are many things that we have to do, not the least of which is to reduce waiting times for gender identity services. I have already commented on that.

All of us also have to recognise that progress in our society is, unfortunately, rarely all one way. We always have to protect and continue to win and re-win the progress that we have made.

I, too, wish people a happy pride month. That started as a process, and Stonewall was, of course, right at the heart of it. To this day, it has done very good work for people who rely on its services and support.

We do not have to look too far to see that there are many forces that want to take us backwards, whether on LGBTI issues, sexism, misogyny or racism. All of us have a duty to stand up for equality, however difficult that may be on occasion, to ensure that our progress as a country continues to be in the forward direction and that Scotland is a place where everybody feels valued, respected and able to be who they are. That is the country that I want not just to lead, but live in as a citizen. We all have work to do to ensure that that is the reality and not just rhetoric.

I thank Jenny Minto for that important question during national carers week. I want to highlight and thank unpaid carers for the incredible contribution that they make. We introduced the carer’s allowance supplement to support carers who are in receipt of carer’s allowance. I recognise that it does not apply to every unpaid carer, but the carer’s allowance supplement has helped more than 100,000 carers since 2018.

The pandemic has added to the pressure on carers, which is why we provided an extra payment last year and we, of course, plan to do the same this year. Establishing a national care service to ensure that the social care system consistently delivers high-quality support for carers and those who need care is vital with regard to the update in the first 100 days of this Administration. We will start the consultation on the necessary legislation and establish a social covenant steering group that will include those with lived experience of care services and unpaid carers, to ensure that the new service is designed around their needs.

I agree very much with the context of the question. It is not for me to comment on what the commissioner might do, but I support any efforts to improve the situation of, and the conditions for, children of asylum seekers.

The Freedom To Crawl campaign was raised with me in the chamber last week or the week before. I have since looked into the matter and, like every other member I am sure, I receive lots of letters from constituents asking me to support the campaign.

The concerns that are being raised are legitimate. I say again that all asylum seekers, particularly young children, must be provided with accommodation that properly meets their needs, ensures that they get support and can access the services that they need, and enables them to be a part of the community. The issues underlying the campaign need to be resolved quickly in the best interests of mothers and babies.

We have repeatedly called on the Home Office to deliver more humane and flexible asylum and immigration policies, and we make clear again that our strong preference is for asylum accommodation to be delivered by the public sector or the third sector.

These are important issues, and we have to consider all the particular cases to make sure that the system can respond overall. On the point about September, there is a recognised need for the pupils who take advantage of the contingency arrangement to engage with universities, colleges or employers about any knock-on effects. If Anas Sarwar wants to send the particulars of a case, I can make sure that that is happening. It should be happening, and we have to ensure that it happens so that there is no disadvantage at that end.

I come back to the most fundamental point. I apologise that I did not catch the name of the young man who Anas Sarwar talked about, but in his case, if the fundamental issue is that, because of the understandable circumstances, the evidence of attainment could not be provided within the given timescale—and this gets to the heart of the matter—an appeal is not going to rectify that, because appeals can look only at the attainment evidence that is provided. That is why extending the timescale for the accumulation and submission of evidence is seen to be a fairer way of doing this.

Because of the lack of exams, the situation that the pandemic has created is far from ideal, but, in an imperfect situation, we are genuinely finding the best overall way. There will always be individual circumstances that we need to look at and make sure that we are taking proper account of. I give an assurance today that we will make sure that that happens. We are seeking to address this issue in as fair a way as possible. I think we have just highlighted why relying on appeals for exceptional circumstances is not always the best way to do that. The way that we are choosing to do that, although it is absolutely not perfect, is in many ways preferable.

Obviously, I do not know all the circumstances of the case, but it sounds as if it was not an acceptable experience for any patient. I will be happy to look at the details if they are provided.

It is important to say that GP practices have remained open during the pandemic, although they have had to change the way in which they cater for patients. They continue to provide clinical care, making more use of NHS near me and telephone consultations, but we are very clear that there must always be an option to have a face-to-face consultation if that is clinically necessary.

The chair of the British Medical Association’s general practitioners committee has commented that face-to-face appointments are an essential part of what GPs do and that GPs are committed to ensuring availability of those appointments. Obviously, individual GP practices have to assess their own circumstances and risks, but it is absolutely essential that patients get access to face-to-face appointments when that is in their interests.

I repeat the offer to look in more detail at the specific case that has been raised, if the patient wishes her or his details to be passed to me.

I will do what I hope is more helpful, which is to try to resolve the issue without the requirement for a meeting. I am trying to bring to mind right now all the details of a previous issue involving dental students, for whom that problem was resolved. If there is a problem with other parts of that cohort, I will take that away today to see whether we can resolve it without the need for a meeting. If that is not possible, I will come back to Michael Marra with the reasons why.

I want to reiterate what I said the other day, because I understand that, as we come out of restrictions and hope to start to get back to normal bit by bit, people will look at different circumstances and events, and ask why something is allowed here and not there. Sometimes, we get those things wrong, which is why we review matters on an on-going basis. However, every event or category of event has to be assessed based on its own characteristics, and we try to do that as best we can.

The Scottish Government position on cruises has been well known and communicated to the industry. This week, at the request of the industry, we reiterated the position, which did not change in any way this week. Domestic cruises will restart when the country as a whole is in protection level 1. The reason why we do not allow cruises right now comes down to their particular characteristics. They represent a long-duration, close-proximity form of leisure, which our advice says has a particularly high risk of transmission. When that is combined with the fact that cruises go to, and passengers can disembark at, multiple locations, the risk of spreading the virus to different parts of the country is increased.

It is difficult for the cruise industry. It is an important part of our economy and we want to support getting it back to normal as much as possible. However, I am explaining why the advice is that it is still prudent to have the restrictions in place right now, while in other circumstances and for other events, with the right mitigations, a different conclusion might be reached.

I recognise that it is difficult for people, but we continue to try to take decisions based on the best advice and by applying the best possible judgment overall.

Obviously, we have a commitment for patients, including children and young people, to receive NHS dental care and treatment as quickly as possible. We are supporting a range of measures to remobilise the NHS overall, which of course includes dental services. As part of that process, I can confirm today a funding package of up to £5 million for improved ventilation in dental premises. We will also continue to fund free personal protective equipment for the dental sector, and increase that supply by up to 50 per cent from July. We will also re-introduce the child smile programme.

There is a significant challenge across the whole NHS to tackle backlogs and get the service back to normal. That is the case in dental services as well, and we will continue to take the necessary steps to support that work.

No. However, it is important and right that we be vigilant around that point. It is the NHS that provides the services that people need, whether for healthcare generally or for dental services in particular. I have not personally seen the letter to which Sarah Boyack refers, but I am happy to have a look at it and its response. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met with the British Dental Association—this week, I think—to discuss those very issues, so there is a real recognition of the importance to support recovery as quickly as possible, in dental services as in the NHS.

To give some context, prior to Covid, NHS dental services provided more than four million courses of treatment every year. A record number of people are registered with an NHS dentist—more than 95 per cent of the population. There are, however, pressures there—some are Covid related and some undoubtedly pre-date Covid. Through funding and efforts to protect from the impacts of Covid and, where necessary, through a redesign of services, the Government will support the profession to ensure that people get the care and treatment that they need, and that they get it on the national health service.

What Douglas Ross is trying to suggest happens is simply not the case, so let me take the chamber and those watching at home through the process.

I have already set out that awards this year are based on teacher judgment. Teachers arrive at their judgments by looking at attainment—the work that pupils have done. There are no past results or algorithms that dictate what an individual learner’s grades will be.

On the quality assurance that is in place—I think that everybody would expect some such process to be in place—the only way in which a school’s past performance is looked at is to identify, within its own local authority area, whether it has provisional grades overall that appear to be significantly out of step with past performance. However—this is the important part—if that happens, provisional grades are then checked again not by the SQA or Education Scotland but by the relevant teachers. The key part is this: if the teacher’s judgment is that they stand by the result that they gave, that result stands and is not changed.

It is simply a checking procedure and it ends in the same place: the teacher’s judgment, based on the attainment of the pupil, determines the grade. Provisional grades are then submitted to the SQA, which is not involved in the process before that. When that happens, they will not be changed because of a school’s past performance. That is a world away from the situation last year, when algorithms and the past performance of schools automatically changed the performance and grade of some pupils. That is not happening.

This is a system that is based on teacher judgment, evidenced by the work that pupils have done throughout the year.