Chamber and committees

We already have a women’s health plan that addresses those and many other issues—in fact, I think that Scotland was the first part of the UK to have such a plan. Professor Glasier will now have the key task of driving it forward.

Those issues are really important, but I do not think that it is the case that the Scottish Government is not using all its levers. As I said earlier, Scotland has the highest uptake rates for the HPV vaccine across all the four UK nations. However, we have recognised that we need to do more and we are doing so through, for example, the introduction of the simplified one-dose schedule. We are seeing the benefits of that approach. Since the vaccination of girls started in 2008, the number of cases with pre-cancerous cells identified in that population at cervical screening has reduced by almost 90 per cent in comparison with rates in women who were not vaccinated. We will continue to take those important steps to improve the health of girls and women in that respect and indeed in all others.

I very much agree with that. I echo Bob Doris’s concerns and what he has said in response to them.

I am aware of similar issues, and I urge people to raise their concerns with advice agencies and their energy providers to get the necessary advice and support. However, because such issues relate to a reserved matter it is incumbent on the United Kingdom Government to take further action on prepayment meters. Forcing people on to those meters, in particular for small amounts of debt during winter, makes matters worse for people—not better—and is more likely to increase debt and leave people unable to heat their homes. I urge the UK Government to respond to that concern and to listen to the many calls to ban energy companies from being able to force people on to the use of prepayment meters.

I have set out in recent weeks the actions that we are taking—the investment in the winter plan and in additional interim care beds, for example, and other support for the national health service. Long waits, whether they are in accident and emergency units or in any other part of the NHS, are unacceptable, and they have consequences, which is why we work so hard to reduce and eliminate long waits in the NHS.

Of course, there is always something missing from Anas Sarwar’s questions—important though those questions are—when he compares figures from 2018 with figures now, and that is the global pandemic that we have been dealing with in the intervening period. That said, it remains the priority to tackle waits in our national health service, which is why we are cautiously optimistic, although not complacent, about the improvements that we are seeing in accident and emergency units. The latest weekly figures, for example, show that four-hour performance is up by 6.7 points on the previous week and, as I said, we are starting to see significant declines in the percentages and the numbers of people who are waiting for more than eight hours and more than 12 hours.

However, there is still a lot of work to do to support staff. Of course, one of the things that we have done here in Scotland but which has not been replicated in England or in Wales, where there is a Labour Government, is to offer staff the best possible pay increase that we can—on average, it is 7.5 per cent here in Scotland, as compared with 4.5 per cent where Labour is in government in Wales.

—those who work so hard across our NHS in Scotland are doing a better job than we find in many other parts of the United Kingdom.

John Mason is absolutely right. I share his concern that Glasgow and other council areas in Scotland that have high levels of deprivation have lost out.

Of course, if the Scottish Government had been given control of that funding, which would have been the correct and sensible course of action, we would not have taken the competitive dash for cash approach favoured by the UK Government. The UK Government can still choose to devolve funding to Scotland for our share of the remaining levelling up funding, and we would be happy to discuss that with it.

That is not just our view. The Tory mayor of the West Midlands described this as another example of

“Whitehall’s bidding and begging bowl culture”.

He said that he

“cannot understand why the levelling up fund money was not devolved for local decision makers to decide on what’s best for their areas.”

I completely agree.

Preventing people who are facing destitution from accessing support when they need it most is unacceptable—and, I think, shocking. It is disturbing in the extreme that the United Kingdom Government’s policy of no recourse to public funds prevents local and national Government from providing support to people and remains the biggest barrier to eradicating rough sleeping in Scotland.

Immigration and the policy of no recourse to public funds are entirely reserved matters. We have repeatedly raised the devastating impact of those policies. We will continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to improve access to support and services for people who are subject to those policies, as far as is possible within devolved powers.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My screen did not connect; I would have voted no.

I agree with those comments by the Health Foundation. Those are not new, or even recent, challenges in Scotland, but it is vital that we do more and as much as possible to tackle them. Tackling health inequalities is a major concern for Governments and communities across the world, and Scotland faces the same challenges as many other countries face.

It is important that we act in a preventative way as much as possible. That is why the Government is doing so much to tackle poverty—as much as we can—within our powers and resources. That is, of course, the route to tackling health inequalities and other inequalities. We will continue to take a range of actions, and we call on the UK Government to step up, as well.

I thank Willie Rennie for raising that issue. I have not seen the video that he mentioned, but I will watch it if it is available, because I think that it is important that we have a full understanding of such issues.

Violence is never acceptable, and the safety of pupils and staff is paramount. Obviously, I cannot comment further today on the specifics of the case at Waid academy, but I am very clear that violence towards anyone is unacceptable.

I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities spokesperson for children and young people to discuss what further support to local authorities is required and what further support we can provide. They met on 2 December, and they discussed a continued commitment to work together in partnership through the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools, and to use the behaviour in Scottish schools research as the national evidence base to inform future policy on relationships and behaviour in schools.

We are also investing an additional £15 million this year to enhance capacity in education authorities and schools to respond effectively to the needs of children and young people.

We will continue to consider fully what additional steps we can take to support councils in making it very clear that violence is unacceptable and in taking action to support children, young people and teachers who face such violence.

Obviously, I am aware of that case and its extremely serious implications. We take that seriously and will consider what further action the Government needs to take to address some of the issues that are raised.

EmilyTest is an important initiative that the Government worked on with universities and which it encourages universities to take very seriously. However, it is clear that serious issues that we need to reflect further on are raised by the case in question, and I give the assurance that the Government will do that.