Chamber and committees

I came along with an open mind because it is not a topic on which I am an expert, but I feel a little bit uneasy. I know that the minister said that there would not be any unintended consequences, but Fiona Hyslop has touched on some of the challenges that churches and faith groups face at the moment, given the role that they play in our communities in supporting vulnerable people, particularly through the cost of living crisis. The danger is that the new arrangement could be more complex than it needs to be. I worry about the administrative costs, because legal fees are not cheap. I think that the new requirement will affect some churches differently, but it is a concern when people say that they do not feel as though they have had proper engagement. Therefore, I am a bit torn.

That is interesting. I want to ask more about the timetabling, because that has been an issue in our inquiry here in Scotland. Sometimes, timetables do not reflect what people need, whether that is businesses or people trying to get to healthcare appointments and so on. Do you have any insight into how the timetabling works and why you think that it works well?

Good morning to Dag Hole and Harald Høyem. Has there been any significant change in the public subsidy for ferry services over the past 10 to 20 years? If so, why has that happened?

I think that you said that the fares have reduced by 50 per cent. Has that resulted in an increase in passengers?

Thank you. I ask Harald the same question.

Will the member give way?

Some important points have been made about the future of apprenticeships. I know that the minister has paid a lot of attention to the cross-party group on construction, but in the week before recess, serious concerns were raised about the future of plumbers, electricians, decorators and other trades. Concerns were raised that apprentices might not get jobs after their apprenticeships end. Those are important points. Perhaps the minister, who is listening, would engage with the group urgently, because there are genuine concerns out there.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer—my throat has been struggling all day, so I will keep this brief. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Ruth Maguire, and I thank her not only for lodging the motion and making the debate possible, but for speaking about something that is deeply personal to her. Those of us who know Ruth know that she is a modest person who is feeling uncomfortable about doing that, but we thank her for putting herself, and her pain and experience, out there. I know that her family, friends and loved ones, who will be listening and watching, will be feeling very proud of her, and we are all glad that she is back in the Parliament.

I was struck by something that Ruth said in her interview with The Sunday Post. She said,

“I didn’t have time to have cancer”,

which stopped me in my tracks on the Sunday morning when I read it. That is a theme in today’s debate, and it was a theme at the recent event that took place in Parliament. I was not able to attend that event because of a funeral, but I chair the cross-party group on women’s health, at which we heard from another woman about her experience and her reality. The issue of not having the time came up again there, because, as women, we so often put ourselves at the back of the queue. We are juggling work and childcare and caring responsibilities, and so much more, so we all have to get real about the issue of time. Life is short, and it is precious, and we have to look after ourselves, so I am glad that Ruth made that point in her interview.

Another woman whom I want to speak about in my brief remarks is Emma Keyes, who is a constituent of mine. Emma is a young mum—she is now 31, and she has three children. She is a very busy and energetic young woman, and those of us who have met her are inspired by her. I know that the minister has previously given her time to meet with Emma, so I remind her that Emma has not gone away. She is a survivor, and she is very much fighting to make sure, as other members have said, that we get there by not simply talking about an elimination strategy but really picking up the pace on cervical cancer.

Emma wants to remind the Parliament and the Government of her story. She says:

“After being diagnosed with cervical cancer and understanding that this is a preventable cancer, it sickens me that other women have to go through this. If we get the right testing implemented, that increases uptake and fewer women will have to hear those dreaded words, ‘You have cervical cancer’. Fewer women will have to face harsh treatments resulting in fertility loss”,

which was Emma’s experience.

She goes on to say:

“HPV home testing kits give us a better chance to treat a pre-cancerous stage as opposed to this horrible cancer diagnosis for a younger age group. If we can increase the uptake with HPV home testing, as has been shown in the trials, then why would not we roll this out sooner? This will literally save women’s lives and take away the many barriers that come along with smear testing.”

That is what Emma has to say. Like other members, therefore, I am really keen to hear from the minister about where we have got to following the trials in Dumfries and Galloway, how we can speed up the process and how we can ensure that, whether in Parliament, in Government or in our own lives, we make the time to treat this issue seriously and use all the tools at our disposal to eliminate cervical cancer.

I want to pick up those themes around inequality and the need for flexibility. We hear a lot from women who have real trouble having the conversation with their employer or manager to get time off work. What discussions is the minister having with employers and trade unions about how we can remind people of fair work principles, to ensure that, in particular, women who are in precarious and low-paid work do not face additional barriers, which is the reality for many people in our communities?

At the moment, are the wrong people round the table, or are people missing from the table?