Chamber and committees

As well as that resource and capacity, is it also about leadership, if you are talking about “downward pressure” on front-line workers?

Is it the view of you and your members that something needs to change but that that should not mean another layer of difference or complexity?

Louise Storie, can I come to you now?

Thank you. That is helpful.

I would like to ask about transitions within university and college and on leaving, which Anne-Marie Sturrock started to speak about. Can you say a bit more about how young people are supported in college? We heard some evidence about the need for flexibility, for example, when young people start a course that is not quite for them. What can colleges do to support them in that situation? You started to speak about the transition out of college and into the world of work or university.

I would be really interested in hearing about that, so perhaps you could send us a note after the meeting.

It is a privilege to open the debate on cervical cancer prevention week, but I confess that I do not feel entirely comfortable. I did not get into politics to talk about myself. Although being open about my diagnosis in 2021 may have inadvertently raised some awareness, I have to say that my motivation for doing that was so that I could properly take time out of the public eye to give my treatment the best chance. I have said this before, but I put on record again my thanks to my team, Lynn and Karen, for their support, and to constituents in Cunninghame South for their understanding and the well-wishes that they sent.

Now, after a year back at work, it feels like an okay time for me to share some of my story. I am grateful to the Sunday Post for helping me to do that, and to Tracey Bryce for the kindness and respect that she showed me in her reporting.

I fully understand that my experience of diagnosis of, and then life-saving treatment for, cervical cancer will not be the same as other women’s experiences. I am acutely aware of just how lucky I was to have all the resources, support and love that I needed to get well. However, I think that I can confidently say one thing on behalf of women who have experienced cervical cancer; it is also the reason why, this year, I am speaking up and supporting Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust in its biggest campaign. It is that we would not want anyone else to go through what we did. The effects of treatment, although that treatment is life saving, can be life changing and long lasting. If we can prevent, end and eradicate cervical cancer, we must.

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust is calling for

“government commitments to elimination, with strategies to make sure that no-one is missed out or left behind.”

In screening and immunisation, we have powerful tools to do just that.

In my local health board area of Ayrshire and Arran, cervical screening coverage is 71.7 per cent. The latest figure for coverage for Scotland is 69.3 per cent, with women in our most deprived areas being least likely to take part in screening. There will be a number of reasons why women do not attend when invited, and it is important that we understand that, so that we can take action to address it. There might be practical considerations. Getting time off work can be difficult for some people—in particular, those who are in low-paid or precarious employment. Likewise, travel, and the cost or time to get there, can be an issue.

More generally, women might feel apprehensive or uncomfortable about the test itself. For one in three women, as survivors of sexual violence, it can be particularly difficult. I would like them to know that they are not alone. The Eve Appeal has a fantastic publication, “Cervical Screening—A guide for survivors of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse”, with tips for the appointment itself and for communicating needs to healthcare professionals. Crucially, the organisation has also published “Cervical Screening—A guide for Healthcare Professionals”, and I commend it to all those who are interested in providing essential trauma-aware support to women.

A Ferret article that was published on 22 January found that

“440,000 eligible”

for cervical screening

“in 2020-21 ... had not had ... a smear test, in the last three to five years.”

It went on to say that

“Those most likely to miss their screening were aged 25-29”,

along with, as I mentioned, those in deprived areas.

There are wider issues to do with inequality in dealing with health. My own experience of accessing tests and treatment made me acutely aware of just how challenging it would have been if I did not have someone to run me there, or if I did not have a job in which I could, to a certain extent, manage my own diary and schedule things in. I am very keen to hear from the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport about the work that the Government is doing to understand and address the inequalities in uptake. That would be helpful not only for cervical cancer screening, and indeed all cancer screening and treatment, but for all areas of health.

I thank those colleagues who supported my motion, and I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues this evening. I also thank everyone who attended the event that Carol Mochan and I sponsored with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. It was good to see so many local press releases going out and awareness being raised locally around the country.

I urge the Scottish Government to continue on the path to elimination. I know that there is good news to tell here, in Scotland, and we need to press forward and keep going on with that. We also need to redouble our efforts on inequality, as that will save lives.

To women and, indeed, to everyone, I say: immunise your young people. To individual women, I say: attend your screenings when invited and, crucially, do not ignore symptoms or bleeding that are different for you; it could save your life. [Applause.]

Good morning, panellists. I appreciate what Ailsa Raeburn and Cliff Hague have said, particularly on the sustainability of jobs and homes. I wish to drill down a bit further on what Rob Dickson has said about the guidance. My understanding is that the committee has received written evidence saying that some local authorities are applying conditions to short-term licences outwith the scope of the legislation. I would be interested to hear Rob Dickson’s further reflections on that. Do you understand that to be correct? What are the implications of that?

After that, I would like to hear from the officers representing Highland Council and Glasgow City Council. Specifically, have those councils applied any additional conditions? If so, what are they, and what do they set out to address?

We have heard about the impact that short-term lets can have occasionally—one of the witnesses described them as “party flats”. You said that the condition relating to noise is not automatically applied. What would trigger a condition relating to noise? I am thinking about neighbours who have such a property next to them.

That is helpful.

Perhaps Gary Somers will comment on any additional conditions for Highland Council.