Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, it had been suggested that that might happen, but there is some evidence—

To be clear, as this is an important policy that we will be voting on, is the Government confident that it worked in the area that it should have worked in and is the Government committed to looking at some of the evidence around the issue and any work that we need to do in that other area?

I confirm that Scottish Labour supports continuation of the MUP and its uprating to 65p.

We also support Public Health Scotland’s work on the issue. As we have heard, the data that has been produced is complicated, but we believe that it is clear that the MUP worked while 50p was an effective price and that lives were saved, as a result. That is undoubtedly significant, and it is only right that we continue the policy and look more at the impacts that an uprated MUP will have on public health. The MUP is, however, not and will never be effective on its own, so I welcome the minister’s acknowledgement of that.

In relation to dependent drinkers, as we have discussed this morning, Public Health Scotland concluded that

“There is limited evidence to suggest that MUP was effective in reducing consumption for those people with alcohol dependence. Those with alcohol dependence are a particular subgroup of those who drink at harmful levels and have specific needs. People with alcohol dependence need timely and evidence-based treatment and wider support that addresses the root cause of their dependence.”

Scottish Labour supports that statement.

The long-term underfunding of alcohol and drug partnerships, the cutbacks to health services and council budgets, and the real-terms cuts to investment in this year’s budget suggest that the Government could become overreliant on MUP as a unitary method of tackling alcohol harm. That will not work—experts tell us as much—so I hope that the Government will now outline what further commitment it will make to services that offer support in our communities. We believe that we cannot continue MUP for much longer without ensuring that the profit that it creates for larger companies is reinvested in publicly funded public health initiatives. We feel that that is only right, and we would seek to work with colleagues to achieve that.

The continuation of MUP is, in my view, a positive step, and it has Scottish Labour’s support. Once again, I urge colleagues to ensure that work is undertaken by the Government to properly fund and support services that will save lives, and that the Government commits to vital services in areas of highest deprivation. If we do not do that and act with purpose, we will quickly see the benefits of MUP fade, which is not something that any of us want. I know from today’s debate that that is the minister’ position, so I hope to work with her to put those things together.

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Scottish Labour, as the party that led the way with the introduction of the smoking ban, will fully support legislation that we hope will lead to the creation of a tobacco-free generation and a tobacco-free Scotland. It is welcome that the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party have come to support Labour’s long-standing position that banning single-use vapes is critical in tackling youth vaping, in the interests of both young people’s health and the environment in which they exist.

Given that Cancer Research UK notes in its briefing ahead of today’s statement that the aim to deliver a smoke-free Scotland by 2034 is well off track, what plans can the minister set out, over and above those that she outlined in her statement, for getting that back on track? Given that vaping legislation is not expected to be implemented for more than a year, can she set out what preparatory and preventative work with our young people will take place between now and then?

I begin by thanking the committee for its work and its report. As my colleague Paul O’Kane said, we accept the committee’s recommendations in full and agree that the legislation is necessary to tidy up the statute book. As we have heard, this is a piece of technical legislation that brings the 2018 act in line with the Court of Session ruling and does so in a manner that ensures that definitions outlined in the Equality Act 2010 are protected.

I note from the committee’s report that the cabinet secretary was pressed on why it took the Government as long as it did to bring forward legislation in the aftermath of the Court of Session ruling. I recognise that the cabinet secretary was keen to pursue other legislative routes to achieve the aims set out within the bill. Clearly, that was not possible and primary legislation has been required. I agree with the cabinet secretary that the bill achieves the requisite removal of any confusion that might be caused.

I am also glad that assurance has been provided stating that the bill has, in effect, a single purpose and that it does not impact the intentions of the act originally passed by the Scottish Parliament. Achieving fairer gender representation on public boards remains of the utmost importance and it is critical that we continue doing all that we can to ensure that women across Scotland are provided with opportunities to sit on the boards of public authorities and that the long-standing barriers to their doing so are removed. The legislation is important and it is right that the bill we are debating today should not detract from its good intentions.

The most recent progress report, which was published in August last year, confirmed that progress has been made, with gender balance being achieved in two thirds of the public authorities listed in the original legislation. However, that also confirms that a further third of public bodies still need to meet that key target. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the next progress report shows even greater developments in the area.

Women’s contribution to public life across Scotland ought to be recognised. Without doubt, the barriers to women holding the most senior positions and having a seat at the boardroom table have been in place for far too long. We must be absolutely clear that nothing will stand in the way of Parliament breaking down those barriers. I am content that the bill will have no detrimental impact on that effort.

I again thank the committee for its report and support the remarks by my colleague Paul O’Kane.

I thank my colleague Foysol Choudhury for bringing the motion to Parliament to raise awareness of brain tumour awareness month. After having met Theo and Thomas from Brain Tumour Research earlier in the parliamentary session, I am pleased to see increased awareness of brain tumour across the Parliament in recent weeks, with questions in round-table meetings and the developing cross-party group. That is all welcome, but it must be done with purpose and it must move the dial forward on the results that we need. It is my understanding that the key to that is progress in the important area of research.

I thank members across the parties for delivering such emotive and powerful personal speeches during the debate. The number of members participating in the debate shows that the discussion is important, and we must work on a cross-party basis to ensure that there are improvements in the statistics that we have heard about tonight.

I welcome the fact that we have time in the chamber to discuss the impact of the disease and the importance of research into brain tumours in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We know from the motion and from members’ contributions that the condition has an impact right across Scotland. One in three people knows someone who is affected by the devastating condition. We know that survival rates remain low and that, devastatingly, unlike other cancers, those rates have not changed in more than a generation.

We also know that brain tumours remain the largest cancer killer of people under 40. That is why it is so important that we take time in the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issue. It is also why I support the calls for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to commit to working with the devolved nations on developing a national brain tumour strategy that addresses the barriers across the whole brain tumour pathway, as we have heard. That includes diagnosis, care and treatment, as well as the important element of research.

I will focus my remarks on research. Other members have done a lot of the work before me, but it has recently come to the attention of many members that research in Scotland needs commitment from the Scottish Government. We have among the best researchers in the world and we have participated in some of the most amazing studies and discoveries from across the world. However, we are at a critical point—some have described it as a crisis point. We know that research into brain tumours is chronically underfunded and underresourced. Only 3.2 per cent of the overall £700 million investment in UK cancer research funding in 2019-20 was spent on brain tumours.

We know that funding is not the only barrier. We had a lot of researchers in the Parliament recently, and the brain tumour charities have told us that current funding that the Government has allocated has not been adequate to spend on the high-quality research that we need. There are significant delays in translating laboratory research into clinical trials, and there are further delays between the clinical trials and medically regulated approval, which means that brain tumour patients are missing out on promising new treatments.

Research into brain tumours must be recognised as a clinical priority, alongside a strategic plan for adequately resourcing and funding it, so that we can make the discoveries that we need to make through that research. Access to new and better treatments will come only if we harness the Scottish research potential and work, as we do so well, with our neighbours across the UK.

If we want to see changes in the statistics that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and that have been mentioned in other members’ speeches, we must have commitment and strong leadership in this area from the Scottish Government. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the minister would outline her plans for funding and maximising the great potential for research that we have in Scotland, so that we see the shift on the dial on brain tumour research.

Recent reports on diversity monitoring and pay gaps for 2021-22 show that the ethnicity pay gap for all staff increased from 27.6 per cent in 2021 to 30.1 per cent in 2022. Furthermore, in 2022 just 18 per cent of applications for jobs in the Scottish Parliament were from minority ethnic candidates—compared with 78 per cent having been from white candidates—and gaps exist in respect of success rates from those applications.

Can the corporate body be clearer about the steps that it is taking in the coming financial year to ensure not only that staff from minority ethnic backgrounds are paid fairly, but that vacancies are adequately promoted to ensure their accessibility to such candidates?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it is taking to address any ethnicity-related pay gap among SPCB staff. (S6O-03215)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to address any barriers to women’s participation in the creative workforce. (S6O-03219)

As you have said, women’s participation in the creative workforce is vital to the growth of the Scottish economy. However, access to affordable, flexible childcare is very limited. The considerable cost and restricted operating hours of childcare services mean that women who wish to return to the creative sector after having children often find it difficult to do so. Does the minister agree that cross-portfolio working is essential, and does she accept that Government cuts to councils are exacerbating those problems? Does she realise that a fair funding settlement for councils that provide services such as childcare could be critical to removing barriers to women’s participation in the creative workforce?