 Gwneud dweud y reilwadau ym ddochig 128 yn NY-Gorge Adam. Yn y cyfcyrch gyda'rblue commercialaidd yn gyffredinfaith hwn cyfrigiaeth, mae'r ddiwrnod o'r methu gael ei bod ynplayingogu ymdannu mewn ffordd o'r reilwadau, ac rydw i'n gael George Adam a hynny dyfodd y ffordd. Rydw i'n gael50 am ddwy. Rydw i'n gael50 am ddwy, mae'n ddull i ddefnyddio'r ffordd a'r ffordd o'r methu gael 12668. Menach Ar面, R Llywyddyn. Mae mô Nebenigwr yn gweithio. 1. Oedry Nicolee Ie Raphaelwchverffaeth ddaeon Rhaol ffrsayeithaidd i ddweud bootzmennod hanfentau ni ysgrifffrhau antyfleg Version y 23 fewn oeddi sydd ar draws iddod i lawch a sprшееis eu cyffryd, oeddök nhad wrth digwydd rwyf i unig i ddau pan involvementaidd i rewardedyn ei ei sjoc hefydyddur dif їх關ndag a ran rhaib yn cynnig iawn a llwyddau i sgwrdd ddechrau'r ddechrau iechyd. What assessment has it made of the potential impact that changes to the state pension age have had on the poverty rate amongst women in Scotland? The Scottish Government welcomes the findings of the report, which recognise the communication failures by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has always and will always support the Wauspy women, and it is a significant moment for all those that have been involved in that campaign. We know that too many single female pensioners in particular are living in relative poverty after housing costs, 23 per cent compared to 16 per cent of single men in 2020-23, for example. The UK Government must take responsibility for the harm that they have caused to the Wauspy women by their mal-administration. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. Given the substantial impact that this has had on so many women, does the cabinet secretary agree with the parliamentary and health service ombudsman's recommendation that the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour, should apologise for their failure to the Wauspy women affected by the increase in the state pension age and set up a compensation scheme and that the DWP should, and I quote, do the right thing? The Ombudsman report was clear that the DWP must indeed do the right thing right away. That means that the UK Government must not only apologise for the harms caused by the mal-administration but must also act. It must set up a compensation scheme that provides full and genuine compensation for the women concerned. It is deeply disappointing that, after years of promises by Labour and Tory members, they are now refusing to accept the recommendations of the report to fully compensate the women impacted. I know that Alan Brown MP has a cross-party support to compensate women in a bill. Once again, it is clear that only with strong voices when the SNP at Westminster can Westminster Governments be held to account regardless of whether they be Labour or Tory. It is incredibly disappointing that, since the publication of the Ombudsman's report last week, the Labour Party has repeatedly failed to give a guarantee that its party in power would honour Westminster's responsibility to provide justice and full compensation to the estimated 3.6 Wauspy women. Can the cabinet secretary provide assurances that the Scottish Government will urge the next UK Government to deliver justice? The Scottish Government, as I said in my original answer, has and always will support the Wauspy women. We are exceptionally concerned about the impact that inaction will have on poverty levels in Scotland. That is why it is very important that this Parliament continues to speak about this, but also to press for action. Jackie Baillie, for example, was pictured campaigning with Wauspy activists just a fortnight ago, and a Sarwar was joined in Paisley last year walking behind a Wauspy banner—the list of every newsletter, every campaign leaflet. I am quite happy for Mr Kerr to press a button and ask a question, but in the meantime, I will continue to deal with the member. She is quite right to point to the betrayal that has happened to Wauspy women. She is quite right to point to the fact that they do not just deserve our respect, they deserve action. What is very clear is that there will be no change in Westminster at this rate, and that is exceptionally disappointing. A betrayal of every single Wauspy women that we have spoken about in this chamber over many a year. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is a very serious report. I would like to thank all the women affected who have contributed to it and have campaigned over many years. Now that the report has been published, would the cabinet secretary take the opportunities to outline what steps she is taking to discuss the implications of this report for Wauspy women in Scotland with the relevant UK ministers right now? I am sure that she agrees that a swift response from this UK Government is extremely important in terms of the next steps. We are also listening to all the views of all those that have been impacted. Given that Poverty and Inequality statistics that was published last week was referred to, she was static in rising poverty rates among pensioners over the past decade. What more will the Scottish Government do within its powers to support pensioners? I discussed this matter only yesterday when I was at Westminster and met my colleague Stephen Flynn, who is continuing to press both the UK Government and any successive UK Government on what it would do. Disappointingly enough, he has had no response. Be assured that the Scottish Government and the SNP group at Westminster will continue to press for action. I am afraid that this is where—I have a great deal of respect for Mr O'Kane—there are many issues where we share common cause. However, this Parliament cannot just be about mitigating the worst excesses of Westminster—whether it is Labour or Tory—this Parliament is for much more than that. I am deeply disappointed that a Labour representative comes and asks what the Scottish Government is going to do to mitigate against a prospective Labour Government. I am sure that members across the chamber will agree that time really matters. Given that it is almost 30 years since the original seeds of the scandal were first sown, it is more than 10 years since its impact was first realised and first came to light. As a result, many of the waspy women have sadly now passed away waiting for this justice. The Ombudsman's decision will become seen as a staging post. I hope that, to the final justice, this woman will receive. However, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that we cannot wait or delay the implementation of the recommendations or the extension of compensation to the women that are left, so that they can enjoy it and that the time that remains to them? The member is quite right to point out that time is indeed off the essence. That is why I continue to call on the current Government to take action. This has been a long-discussed betrayal, and it is a betrayal of waspy women. The report that it has come out has laid bare the extent of that. Quite frankly, change should have happened already, and I think that the member and I would agree. However, if this could be the stepping stone to something actually happening and genuine compensation being put in place, then, of course, this report will have done its job and so much more. Disappointingly, however, it does not seem to be the case that that will actually happen. I would also like to put on record my thanks to all the waspy women who have campaigned on this issue for so long. Not only should their call for proper compensation be answered, because we know that some women have lost up to six years of their pension. We also need to continue to stand with them and join their calls for fair and fast compensation. In addition to what she has already said, can the cabinet secretary outline how else we can continue to support the waspy women in their campaign for justice? Of course, the ability for this Parliament, this Government to take action on this is restricted by our legislative competence around areas on reserved issues, but we will continue to use our voice within this Government to ensure that we speak up for waspy women. I am sure that Maggie Chapman and fellow colleagues in the Scottish Greens will do likewise. It is disappointing that we will not, I fear, be able to speak with one united voice to call on the current UK Government to take that fair and fast action that Maggie Chapman discussed in terms of compensation. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Scotland has become the worst country in Europe for unqualified petitions injecting customers with cosmetic treatments. Thank you. The safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures is a concern and we are right now actively considering how best to take forward any future legislation. Public consultation has shown overwhelming support for tighter regulation in this area and that is what we are working towards with key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, hair and beauty industry representatives and environmental health officers. Indeed, my officials took part in a meeting just yesterday. This is a fast-changing sector and any future legislation has to be robust and future-proofed. Ultimately, we want to ensure that all non-surgical cosmetic procedures in Scotland are delivered from hygienic premises by appropriately trained practitioners, applying recognised standards and using regulated products. Tens of thousands of people across Scotland now get dermal filler treatment. As its popularity increases, so do complications such as inflection, blocked arteries, blindness and even stroke. The increased popularity has been mirrored by a surge in unlicensed counterfeit unsafe products being passed off as Botox treatment. In 2021, it became illegal in England for a person under the age of 18 to have fillers or Botox. Stakeholders such as Aston Collins from Safe Face, the UK Government-approved register for aesthetic treatment said that she had assumed that Scotland would follow. We keep asking for an update, but so far there is no agenda for them to do that. She went on to say that the lack of action in Scotland has resulted from young people from the north of England travelling to Scotland because they can get treatments under the age of 18 with no questions asked. My question to the minister is simple. Will the Scottish Government accept that its lack of action is putting children at risk? I want to make clear that my focus is in making Scotland as safe as it can be when it comes to dermal fillers. We need to get it right. As I referenced earlier, it is a fast-moving area. I am pleased that I have the engagement of the expert group. I am very happy that Ross Macall could provide any additional information or evidence that she is aware of around the processes that we are all invested in to make sure that we get that right as possible. I am pleased that Ross Macall and I have a shared issue. Any evidence of concerns, please, if she could share it with me so that I can share with my officials. I thank the minister for the response and I am happy to share everything that I have with her. However, as the consultation was called in 2022, I am not seeing enough urgency from the Scottish Government really on this issue. Francis Turner trail, a prescribing nurse and director of a registered clinic, is concerned that the lack of action from the Scottish Government will actually see patients die. She said that it has been 10 years that myself and colleagues have been sat around the table with the Scottish Government and very little has been done. It is inexcusable because the public is now injecting the public without any redress. It is simply wrong that it is currently completely legal for a plumber or a hairdresser to inject a 16-year-old girl in the back of a van with no recourse another healthcare professional has stated. Can the minister confirm to the chamber today any timescales for potential legislation because clearly the current situation is not acceptable? I thank Ross Macall for her question. At this time, I cannot provide a timeline but I am working incredibly hard with my officials to ensure that we do get this into the parliamentary legislative process. I think that it is an important area that we need to find the right legislation at the right time with the right procedures and regulations within it. The minister is very much aware of my concerns about this issue and I pay tribute to Gill Best aesthetics in my constituency for their leadership in campaigning about this matter. However, I am aware of the strength of many of my constituents' concerns about this issue. Can the minister say any more about what consideration the Scottish Government has given to regulating and would she agree to meet me to discuss this matter in more detail? I thank Stuart McMillan for his question. As I have just advised out to the chamber, we are giving very active consideration to further legislation in this area right now and we are meeting regularly with the expert group. This covers the appropriate level of training and qualifications that might be put in place. I think that it is critical, as I have said before, to get the details right and I am grateful to our stakeholder partners. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the member and Ross Macall at some point. I am not doubting the sincerity of the minister and recognising that she is relatively new in post. Given the answers that she has given today, I am sure that she is not comfortable giving the answers that she has given because it would appear that for 10 years nothing has happened. Other parts of the United Kingdom have moved ahead three years ago to understand why we are not making progress is important. Will the minister please explain to the chamber why it is taking so long? What is stopping us from making faster progress in this area? I have laid out in my previous answers that we have been working very hard with experts in the field to ensure that we get this legislation correct. That is what I am focusing on, to ensure that we get the right legislation in place and that we are supporting people who are wrongly getting injected with fillers that they should not be. Perhaps we all have a responsibility in this, Mr Kerr. I suggest that you take time to perhaps spread the word that people should be really careful about where they go. I am suggesting that, as representatives of the people of Scotland, we have a responsibility in that. I am suggesting that you put it out in your—I am well aware—I am the Government. Mr Kerr, I would be grateful when the minister is responding if you were to resist the temptation to contribute from your seat. Thank you, minister. Are you content that your response is— I am content. We will move on to question 3, and I call Katie Clark. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it has taken to tackle child poverty. The Scottish Government continues to do all it can within its powers to tackle child poverty. It will continue to invest around £3 billion next financial year to, as part of the Scottish Government's mission, tackle poverty and protect people from harm. In 2024-25, we committed £457 million for our Scottish child payment, over £370 million to support concessionary bus travel for over 2 million people, and we are continuing to invest around £1 billion per year in high-quality early learning and childcare. We recognise that child poverty levels remain too high in Scotland. That is despite Scottish Government action making a difference with our policies estimated to keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in the coming year. Our efforts continue to be hampered by the UK Government's decade of austerity. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions resources survey shows that children are more likely to be in poverty than pensioners or working-age adults after housing costs. What work is the Scottish Government doing to evaluate the effectiveness of the Scottish child payment? The Scottish Government takes very seriously our requirements to not only act, but also to research the evidence base behind what the policies are doing right across Scotland. That is exactly why I could commend to the member, for example, a recent report by Professor Linda Bald, which looked at social security and the impact that social security is having already, despite the system being still relatively new. I give that as one example of what we are doing to analyse the impact and effectiveness of policies, as well as talking about the actions that we will continue to take next year. Figures released by the Scottish Government also show that child poverty levels have not reduced despite the Scottish Government saying it as a top priority. What other work is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that support is targeted at the poorest children? As I mentioned in my original answer, we are, as a Government, investing £3 billion in our work to tackle poverty and protect people from harm. Some of that is a universal offering, which I think is an important concept. I hope that members on the Labour benches will agree that it is an important aspect of our public services. There are other areas that are targeted—the Scottish child payment being one example of that. I think that a combination of those universal and targeted approaches is the right one. However, it is made more difficult by the fact that the UK Government welfare system pushes people into poverty. Indeed, we have a system where the individuals who are on benefits cannot even begin to afford the essentials of life. That is exactly why the Scottish Government has called on the current UK Government to implement an essential guarantee. It has so far refused to do so. It is even more disappointing that UK Labour has also refused to take that action. It was not so long ago that Scottish Labour was campaigning for an additional £5 payment for children, but the SNP Government instead introduced the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 per week per eligible child. How many children has this lifted out of poverty and confirmed that, unlike the Labour Party, this Government will not renege on its policy of opposition to the two-child benefit cap? I notice that we are trying to have a serious discussion here on child poverty. I have Mr Acayne and Mr Kerr on either side, shuntering from a sedentary position. I am not going to get put off by having a discussion on the point of order, Stephen Kerr. The minister is making a really good point. One of the reasons why we might be saying that the questions that she is getting this afternoon are about policies of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. The minister has come to explain into account for the policies of the SNP Green Government. That is why there might be some shuntering. I raise that as a point of order, because I am sure that the public, as well as you, might want to know why we are exercised. I think that it is the case, regardless of members' views on contributions that other members might be making, that they always adhere to the requirement to treat one another with courtesy and respect. I would ask that we continue our business today in that regard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will continue to follow your lead on the questions that you choose within Parliament and answer them accordingly. That is why it is disappointing, when we are having a discussion on child poverty, that we should be recognising the fact that, for example, the Scottish child payment is estimated to keep around 60,000 children out of relative poverty next year. That is important forecasting work. However, we know, as I said in my original answer to the Labour member for Mr Kerr's benefit, that there is more to be done. I give one example of how much more could be done if the UK Government were to abolish the two-child limit. That could lift 10,000 children out of poverty overnight. It is deeply disappointing that neither of the main parties in Westminster have agreed to do that. That pushes people into poverty just at exactly the time that we are trying to raise them out of it. What impact would there be on child poverty in Scotland if the Scottish Government had cut taxes by £561 million as called for by Labour in the Scottish budget? Has there been any indication that a future UK Labour Government, if elected, would replicate the Scottish child payment of £26.70 per child per week from April? If the cabinet secretary, when responding, could focus on the matters for which the Scottish Government has generally responded. I will be delighted to do so by talking about the progressive income tax decisions taken by this Government. That is providing vital revenue to invest in public services. That is why it was deeply concerning that the Labour Party, as part of the Scottish Government's budget process, chose and it was a choice to put forward a policy that would have taken £561 million out of that. I give some examples of what the Government would not have been able to do. For example, we would not have been able to potentially invest £457 million in the Scottish child payment or more than £133 million to mitigate the worst excesses of Westminster welfare regime. It is telling that there is a level of discomfort as we tackle child poverty in Scotland from both Labour and Conservative. I think that discomfort is due to the inaction of both their parties at Westminster. That concludes topical questions. The next point of order is Stuart McMillan. Sineosa, thank you very much for taking a point of order. Can you provide some assistance regarding the implementation of the urgent question process please? Urgent questions need to be submitted before 10am. Today, news broke regarding Ferguson Marine around 11am and every MSP in this chamber recognises the importance and significance of the yard and the reporting about the yard for quite a certain time. I applied for an urgent question and this obviously was refused because it was after 10am, but what consideration will you give to changing the deadline for urgent questions, which are actually urgent, as this is the case with today's example? Parliament's rules now leave me with no option but to wait until tomorrow to ask a question on behalf of my constituents on this vital business in my constituency. I thank Mr McMillan for his point of order. It is of course the case that standing orders require the timetable that currently exists. Such timetables of course are open to review constantly. There are processes within the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which means that any member can put forward a proposal, the committee will discuss it. That is one way of making a change, such as that that the member wishes to see in this instance. Alternatively, the member could call for the particular order to be temporarily suspended, for example. Stuart McMillan, you have a point of order. I ask you on the removal of the temporary suspension of that particular standing order, could that happen then for the staff that are in place? In that case, Mr McMillan, I would require to have a motion without notice that that standing order is temporarily suspended. Is that the motion that you wish to move? In that case, I put to the Parliament that the standing order will have to suspend business for five minutes. I call for that suspension just now.