Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, thank Ruth Maguire for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am sorry that I am not in the chamber but at home.

I will make a short contribution, because I know that we have a lot of business to get through today. My first point is that it was an absolute honour to co-host, with Ruth Maguire, the drop-in event for MSPs with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust as part of cervical cancer prevention week. It was crucial that members had the opportunity to learn about the statistics in their regions relating to cervical cancer and HPV vaccine availability and uptake, as well as the general work of Jo’s trust and the work that it does in raising awareness across Scotland.

The report that Jo’s trust published last month entitled “We can end cervical cancer: The opportunities and challenges to eliminating cervical cancer in the UK” raises some concerning points. Notably, it highlights that the incidence in Scotland per 100,000 is higher than that in any other part of the United Kingdom and more than three times higher than the WHO target. Therefore, it is important that we take the issue very seriously.

The report also indicates that, as we have heard from many speakers, people in the most deprived areas are, by quite some distance, less likely to attend screening appointments. That is even more concerning given that Jo’s trust tells us that 50 per cent of instances of cervical cancer in the UK are in women who have never been screened. Yet again, we see that health inequalities in Scotland are deep and divisive. I have often raised in the chamber the point that health inequalities are taking lives.

That is why I have repeatedly asked the minister about self-sampling, and why I am pleased that many members have raised that issue tonight. Cancer charities feel that self-sampling is one of the most important issues among the top five priorities for screening programmes across the UK, and that it could help at that level.

In closing, I want to ask the minister about the pilot project in Ayrshire and Arran for people with physical disabilities. We have spoken about the health inequality that exists for women with physical disability. I hope to visit the service there with Jo’s trust, and I hope that the minister will see that as an important step in making sure that we get that right for those women.

In the interests of time, I will close there. I thank everybody for their contributions. I again thank Ruth Maguire, and I thank the minister for responding.

Social care is one of the most pressing issues that the country faces, and I am confronted with the consequences of the failure to deal with it every time I visit a hospital or speak to local community groups in my region.

I think that the number of times that I have spoken on this topic during this parliamentary session might be getting close to double figures, but we are no closer to a resolution. Like many people who work in the sector, I am frustrated by the Government’s lack of meaningful action to address the problem. The Government fails to recognise—as it so often does—that it cannot begin to solve the crisis in the NHS without addressing the vast lack of care capacity. At the heart of that is the need to treat the care workforce better. Care staff are treated as though they were an afterthought, and it does not help that the Government refuses to pay them enough to live on.

If that is not the number 1 priority for the Government, we are very far apart in our assessments of what is going wrong. Scottish Labour has said repeatedly that we must immediately uplift social care pay to £12 per hour, with a plan to increase it to £15. That will bring people into the role and encourage people who left the sector to return, which is important.

Equally, removing non-residential care charges will begin to make care affordable for everyone in Scotland, during and after a burdensome cost of living crisis. The Feeley review recommended that reform, which was in the cabinet secretary’s party manifesto. The Government made promises to the public on which it has not delivered—and it looks like it will never deliver on them. Surely it must do better.

I reiterate that, if we refuse to act on those recommendations, we are not treating the problem with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not here to make repeated political points about the SNP-Green Government—points that I have made time and again in the past, because this Government does not listen. I simply want to recognise that there is general agreement in the Parliament that the NHS is in crisis and we want to do something about it, by implementing recommendations that alleviate the problems, so that the impact can be felt immediately.

Let us pause the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that the plans are for a national care service that is not worthy of the name. We need a complete review of the intended goals, because the bill is not working for people who need care and will certainly not work for the social care workforce.

The public are beginning to see that this Government needs to look at the national care service and act now. Sometimes, it feels to people that Holyrood is not making decisions. The approach that is set out in Scottish Labour’s amendment would provide immediate help by starting to bring back to the caring profession people who had given up on getting a fair pay deal. I implore the Government to take those people seriously before it is too late to do so.

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a registered landlord.

I have a few questions about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. What impact do you think the bill will have on the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament?

Are you taking any specific steps to identify what will be devolved to us?

I have one last question about dates and times. Do you have any anticipated dates for when subordinate legislation under that bill might come to us? Will there be peak times when there will be a high level of scrutiny?

I just want to declare an interest, as a registered landlord with rented property.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that some women have been denied transvaginal ultrasounds on the basis of not yet being sexually active. (S6O-01813)

It is critical that no one is denied access to vital healthcare on the basis of their not being sexually active. Although the number of reported cases of that happening in Scotland is low, one case is too many. Will the minister commit today to ensuring that the guidance notes that are provided for practising and future doctors on transvaginal ultrasounds are clear in saying that women who are not sexually active are eligible for procedures, to give everyone the best opportunity to detect abnormalities?