Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankarayesh Academy. Displayed other lists of news articles taken for today's analysis and their page numbers in different editions of the newspaper. The link for the handwritten notes in the PDF format and the time stamping of the discussed articles are provided in the description and also in the comment section for the benefit of the viewers. Now let us move on to the analysis of the first news article. This news article is with reference to the rise in tensions between China and Taiwan. The news article states that Taiwan is organizing military drills to counter potential threat from China. In this context, let us try to understand why China and Taiwan are hostile neighbors and why China considers Taiwan as its own province and naming it as Chinese Taipei. The syllabus relevant for the analysis of this news article is highlighted here for your reference. So to understand the ongoing tussle between China and Taiwan, we have to go back to 17th century. See, it is in the 17th century in the year 1644 AD, the last imperial dynasty of China was established. And this dynasty is called as Qing dynasty of China or it is also called as Qing dynasty or Manchu dynasty. This dynasty ruled China until 1911-1912. This dynasty, it gained control of the Taiwan geographical territory in the late 17th century. Close to two centuries later, Japan acquired Taiwan in the year 1895. This is after the first Sino-Japanese war. However, with the defeat of Japan in the World War II in 1945, Taiwan was returned to the nationalist Chinese control. But we have to note that in the year 1949, Chinese communists led by Mao, they defeated the nationalist forces on the mainland and established People's Republic of China in the year 1949. As a result, the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek moved his government, party and military from China to Taiwan. So this resulted in the separation of Taiwan from China. While mainland China, the government there is known as People's Republic of China, we should know that the government in Taiwan is called as Republic of China. Now coming to the geographical location of Taiwan, see it is located in the western Pacific between Japan and the Philippines. It is located south to the east China sea and it is located off the southeastern coast of China. At the international level, we should know that it was Taiwan which represented China in the United Nations till October 1971. On October 25, 1971, United Nations General Assembly voted to admit People's Republic of China and to expel the Republic of China that is Taiwan. Therefore, the People's Republic of China assumed the place and position of Republic of China or Taiwan's position in the General Assembly and also in the United Nations Security Council. And after this, Chiang's government in Taiwan, it quickly lost its international standing with the politics and pressure of the mainland Chinese government at various international arrangements in which earlier Taiwan was a part. Now if you come to the present stance of China with respect to Taiwan, China maintains that Taiwan is integral to its territory that is Taiwan belongs to China but this is disputed by people and the government in Taiwan and also few other countries. So now what steps China may take you know to integrate Taiwan to itself it bullies with its military might say in some day or other it can generate some international pressure source to annex this part and we are seeing in recent days particularly in the post COVID-19 scenario China is aggressively changing what was the status earlier with India and several other countries in South China Sea with respect to maritime dispute with Philippines China also called null and void an order of the permanent court of arbitration as well well this was earlier in the recent days we could see China aggressively changing status quo with its several neighbors recently we discussed about its role in Bhutan as well that is with reference to sucking wildlife sanctuary of Bhutan seeing all these developments Taiwan prepares to maintain its territorial integrity and therefore it prepares its military for a possible aggression from China in addition to this Taiwan is trying very hard to get international recognition for its sovereignty and also for its representation in many international bodies but in all such bodies China is strongly opposing Taiwan's effort to get international acceptance China's claim is Taiwan will be represented only by itself as it is an integral part of Chinese territory that is a territory of People's Republic of China and with reference to this recently we saw an issue with the World Health Organization as well where Taiwan urged WHO to allow it to rejoin as an observer this was condemned by China and Taiwan was not allowed to rejoin as well in this scenario few days back the upper house of US Congress that is the US Senate it has passed a bill seeking the restoration of Taiwan in WHO so in brief know that currently Taiwan is ruled by its own government and not by China and China considers Taiwan as its integral part as Chinese Taipei while Taiwan considers itself as a sovereign nation Republic of China and before 1971 Taiwan represented China in United Nations which was later replaced by the People's Republic of China or the government in the mainland China so these are some of the important information with reference to the analysis of this news article we discussed about historical relationship of Taiwan with China and the present issues between the mainland Chinese government and the Republic of China in Taiwan now let's move on to the analysis of next news article this editorial is about recent judgment of supreme court which is a filip or boost to the rights of persons with disabilities in this discussion we will see about background of the judgment we'll also see about another important 2012 judgment with reference to persons with disabilities the syllabus relevant for the analysis is highlighted here for your reference first let's see the background of the issue see the judgment of the supreme court is delivered to an appeal against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court a petition was filed by a person in this Punjab and Haryana High Court the person is intellectually challenged to the extent of 50 percent that is he is a person with benchmark disability according to the rights of person with disabilities act of 2016 so here you can see how the definition of person with benchmark disability varies with the definition of person with disability now this individual has applied for a diploma course in fine arts for physically or mentally challenged students he filed the petition challenging certain provisions of prospectors issued by the government college he claims that there must be a bifurcation of the total available seats between physically challenged students and mentally or intellectually challenged students he also demanded that mentally or intellectually challenged students should be exempted from taking aptitude test now regarding the reservation of persons with disabilities you should know that there are two important sections in the 2016 legislation these are sections 32 and 34 of the act section 32 provides for not less than five percent or at least five percent reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities and this shall be given along with an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education and section 34 provides for not less than four percent or at least four percent reservation in vacancies in all government establishments then it provides for one person reservation for those suffering from intellectual or allied disability or multiple disabilities that is one person reservation for persons suffering from blindness and low vision one person for persons suffering from deaf and hard of hearing like this for the last two subsections that is D and E total reservation shall be at least one percent so we can observe that around 87 percent of this reservation goes to physically disabled candidates that is the act says at least one percent of reservation shall be for each of the category under A, B, C and one person total at least for D and E category and within this D and E category only D category deals with intellectual or mental disability so this is where the petitioner demanded a bifurcation of total available seats between physically challenged students and mentally and intellectually challenged students but the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition and noted that all persons with disability must be treated equally and no benefit shall be given to a class of disabled persons at the expense of another class the court also rejected the demand for exemption from aptitude test as well here additionally based on 2012 case law of Delhi High Court the petitioners argued that an intellectually or mentally challenged student is at least equally deprived as a student belonging to the persons belonging to schedule cast or schedule tribes they argued that if aptitude test has to be taken then minimum passing marks should be reduced to 35 percent as in the case of students belonging to schedule cast and schedule tribes but this argument again was also rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court now the 2012 case law is what is called as Anamol Bandari versus Delhi Technological University in this case the court noted that the persons belonging to schedule cast and schedule tribes had been given 10% relaxation in the minimum marks required for admission but candidates belonging to persons with disabilities they were given only 5% relaxation so Delhi High Court held that persons with disabilities should be treated at par with candidates belonging to schedule cast and schedule tribes now let us see on what basis Delhi High Court gave this judgment in 2012 well first is based on constitutional mandates that the constitution of India ensures equality freedom justice and dignity of all individuals under articles 14 16 so here it implicitly mandates the same treatment for persons with disabilities as well secondly it is according to national policy of persons with disabilities of 2006 this policy noted the above constitutional mandate additionally this national policy noted that education is the most effective tool for social and economic empowerment and if you see according to 2001 census 51% of persons with disabilities were illiterate now this situation saw less improvement if you compare with according to 2011 census 54% of disabled children with multiple disabilities never attended educational institutions also 50% of children with mental illness never attended education institution and overall only 55% of the total disabled population are literates now this means around 45% of persons with disabilities are illiterate according to 2011 census so the national policy urged that if any meaningful rights are to be given to persons with disabilities then prime importance is to be given to educate them this is because disability may act as a major impediment in formal education so based on these things Delhi High Court recognized that without imparting proper education to persons suffering from disabilities there cannot be any meaningful enforcement of rights of PWDs under the constitution thirdly with respect to the reservation and treatment for persons with disabilities the Delhi High Court noted that persons with disabilities who belong to schedule caste or schedule tribes they would automatically enjoy the benefit of relaxation available for schedule caste and schedule tribe categories for example like age relaxation or the cutoff marks or the minimum required marks etc but persons with disabilities belonging to obc and general categories they are treated differently for example they will have higher cutoff marks and other treatment so the court observed that this is a differential treatment and is discriminatory to persons with disabilities of obc and the general categories so Delhi High Court noted that there is no reason why the benefits of candidates belonging to schedule caste schedule tribes in general should not be extended to the entire class of persons with disabilities court noted that such a process only will bring parity among all persons with disabilities that is the understanding is that let the persons with disabilities across all categories including obc general category sc st be considered as a single group and let them enjoy common benefits as a whole so this will bring additional benefits relaxations among the persons with disabilities as the same benefits so based on these points Delhi High Court ruled that people suffering from disabilities are equally socially backward as persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes so therefore as per constitutional mandates they are entitled to that is the persons with disabilities are entitled to at least the same benefit of relaxation that is given to schedule caste and schedule tribe candidates so this 2012 judgment of Delhi High Court is important because in the recent case when the petitioner filed an appeal to the supreme court the supreme court upheld this 2012 judgment of the Delhi High Court and has passed order here note that supreme court first upheld the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court with respect to bifurcation of total seats and exemption from aptitude test the apex court noted that no exemption can be given but it ultimately followed the principle that is laid down in 2012 judgment by the Delhi High Court see supreme court recognized the struggle faced by persons with disabilities in accessing education or employment regardless of their social status therefore it upheld that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward and therefore at the very least they must be entitled to same benefits as given to persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes so supreme court held that 35 percent required to pass in the aptitude test with reference to persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes the same shall apply to disabled persons in future now with respect to this supreme court verdict there is one argument which is noted by this editorial that some experts observe that by eliminating the distinction between the disabled and the persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes there is an attempt to equate physical or mental disability with the social disability and the experience of untouchability suffered by marginal sections for several centuries they argue that persons with disability from a traditionally privileged community has a better social background and advantage over those persons with disabilities suffering from historical social disability now we saw in the census data that there is extremely low literacy rate among persons with disabilities and this leads to low employment rates in general and the persons with disabilities are deprived of a dignified life as well so to bridge this gap the right of persons with disabilities act 2016 raised the reservation to 5 percent from the existing 3 percent this 3 percent reservation was as per persons with disabilities act of 1995 note that the 2016 act repealed this 1995 legislation and one more sale in feature if you talk about the 2016 laws that there is an enabling provision to provide incentives to employers in private sector that is government can provide incentives to the private sector to ensure that at least 5 percent of their workforce is composed of persons with benchmark disability finally the government's role is to give full effect to these provisions so that persons belonging to disabilities among the population is not left out of social and economic advancement now one main inference from this article discussion is that what the editorial implies is there must be a separate category of reservation and relaxation for all the persons belonging to persons with disabilities to give effect they may be given a separate reservation not within obc's not within scst's and they may be considered at par with at least persons belonging to schedule cast and schedule tribes so with this we come to the end of analysis of this editorial in this editorial we saw the background of recent supreme court judgment and we discussed about the 2012 judgment of telly high court which was upheld recently by the supreme court from this discussion take note of the sections that we have discussed from rights of persons with disabilities act of 2016 as there could be a main question on this legislation now let us move on to next news article this news article is about maternal mortality ratio article notes that maternal mortality ratio in india has declined in the time period 2016 to 18 the data is provided by sample registration system which is the largest demographic sample survey that provides direct estimates of maternal mortality through a nationally representative sample this data is released by the office of the registrar general india under the ministry of home affairs using sample registration system see maternal mortality in a region it is a measure of reproductive health of women in the area many women in reproductive age span they die because of complications during pregnancy then following pregnancy and childbirth are due to abortion according to world health organization maternal death is the death of a woman while pregnant or death of a woman within 42 days of termination of pregnancy this is irrespective of the duration of pregnancy or the site or place of residence maternal death is related to causes related to pregnancy or causes aggravated by the pregnancy or management of such causes but maternal death does not include accidental or incidental causes that is it does not include causes other than causes related to pregnancy now know that one of the key indicators of maternal mortality is maternal mortality ratio it is defined as number of maternal deaths during a given time period per 1 lakh live births during the same time period here it is important for us to know about stg goal that is related to it which is goal number three good health and well under this goal there is a target 3.1 which states that the aim is to reduce global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 1 lakh live births this is to be achieved by the year 2030 now where do india stand with reference to achieving this target cvr still far from achieving according to recent srs data the maternal mortality ratio of india is 113 in the period 2016 to 2018 but this is seen as a success because mmr has actually declined from 122 in the time period 2015 to 17 and from 130 in the period 2014 to 16 so we can see a gradual reduction in mmr now with respect to states highest maternal mortality ratio is seen in the state of azam that is 215 this is followed by utha padesh where it is 197 there is one positive note that is the southern states which are andhra pradesh telangana tamil nadu kerala and karnataka for these states their maternal mortality ratio is less than national maternal mortality ratio that is for these states maternal mortality ratio is less than 113 and these states are classified as southern states as per the sample registration system the better performer with respect to maternal mortality ratio with the state of kerala with the number 43 and normally there is a confusion with respect to maternal mortality ratio and maternal mortality rate but there is a slight difference it was also noted in the recently released document by ministry of home office see maternal mortality rate is the maternal deaths of women in the ages 15 to 49 per 1 lakh women in that age group now this data related to maternal mortality rate is important particularly to bring policy responses in general for reproductive health here we find that age group is given importance now coming to maternal mortality ratio definition it is defined as number of maternal deaths during a given time period per 1 lakh live births during the same period so these are some of the important information with reference to the analysis of this news article now let's move on to next article this news article is with reference to the political tamil happening in the ruling congress party in rajasthan the rajasthan assembly speaker has issued disqualification notices to the congress leader sachin pilot and some other mls these mls they are moving to the high court challenging the notice issued by the assembly speaker for our today's analysis let us talk about the speaker not in the state legislative assembly but of the lokshaba and also the presiding officer of rajasabha now with reference to disqualification and matters related to the 10th schedule we have discussed in detail on our 9th june 2020 hindu news analysis the syllabus relevant for the analysis of this news article is highlighted here for your reference see each house of parliament has its own presiding officer in case of lokshaba it is the speaker in case of rajasabha it is the chairman now coming to the speaker the speaker of lokshaba is elected from its members and whenever the office of speaker falls vacant the lokshaba elects another member to fill the vacancy of the speaker now the date of election of the speaker is fixed by the president and note that whenever the lokshaba is dissolved the speaker does not vacate her office and the speaker continues till the meeting of newly elected lokshaba now coming to roles and functions of speaker the speaker is the head of the lokshaba she is the guardian of powers and privileges of the members and also the guardian of powers and privileges of the house as a whole and also its committees know that the speaker's decision in all parliamentary matters is final the speaker derives her powers and duties from three sources a constitution of india the rules of procedure and conduct of business of lokshaba and also from parliamentary conventions now let's see some of the powers and duties of speaker her primary responsibility is to maintain order and decorum in the lokshaba for conducting its business she is the final interpreter of the provisions of the constitution within lokshaba and also she is the final interpreter of the rules of procedure and conduct of business of lokshaba as well and it is the speaker who adjourns the lokshaba in the absence of a quorum here quorum when we say it refers to one-tenth of the total strength of lokshaba you should know that the speaker does not vote in the first instance but makes a casting vote in case of a time speaker of lokshaba resides over a joint sitting of two houses of parliament when such a sitting is summoned by the resident and with reference to money bill it is the speaker of lokshaba who decides whether a bill is money bill or not and her decision on this matter is final now apart from these the speaker also decides on the questions of disqualification of a member of lokshaba arising on the ground of defection under the tenth schedule but as per earlier judgments of the supreme court this decision of the speaker is subject to judicial review so generally we can see that a speaker is provided with security of tenure the salaries and allowances are fixed by parliament they are charged on the consolidated fund of india therefore they are not subject to the vote of parliament and the work and conduct of speaker cannot be discussed and criticized in the lokshaba except on a substantive motion the speaker of lokshaba is given a very high position in the order of presidents the speaker is placed along with the chief justice of india now coming to the presiding officer of rajeshabha it is the chairman the vice president of india is the ex-officio chairman of rajeshabha but when vice president acts as president or when vice president discharges the functions of the president she or he does not perform the duties of the office of chairman of rajeshabha know that the chairman of rajeshabha can be removed from his or her office only if the person is removed from the office of vice president and as a presiding officer the powers and functions of chairman and rajeshabha are similar to those of the speaker in lokshaba however there are two three distinctions the speaker of lokshaba has two or three special roles that are not enjoyed by the chairman one as we saw earlier the speaker of lokshaba decides whether a bill is money bill or not then the speaker presides over joint sitting of two houses of parliament here we can see that speaker is a member of a house the chairman of rajeshabha is not a member of the house therefore the speaker of lokshaba presides over a joint sitting of two houses in case speaker is absent it will be presided by deputy speaker of lokshaba if deputy speaker is also absent it will be presided by the deputy chairman of rajeshabha if deputy chairman is also absent then such other person as may be determined by the members present at the joint sitting will preside over the meeting with this we come to the end of the discussion related to this news article we discussed about the presiding officers of both houses of parliament we saw the functions and powers associated with them now let's move on to the analysis of next news article this news article is with reference to sero or serum sample testing done by the national center for disease control the center has told the delhi high court that the preliminary result of sero surveillance sample testing across delhi will take at least another week in this context let us discuss in brief about the national center for disease control and we'll conclude the discussion by seeing also about the national institute of virology coming to this national center for disease control know that it is under the administrative control of director general of health services of ministry of health and family welfare if you see the origin of this center it is with the central malaria bureau which was established in the year 1909 then a development happened in the year 1938 when the central malarial bureau was renamed as malarial institute of india later the activities of this institute were expanded so as to cover communicable diseases and therefore in 1963 it was renamed as national institute of communicable diseases and a recent development happened in the first decade of the 21st century that is in 2009 it was transformed into national center for disease control with a larger mandate of controlling emerging diseases and re-emerging diseases at present this center is headquartered in delhi now coming to its functions very importantly it functions as nodal agency in the country for disease surveillance then facilitating prevention and control of communicable diseases it functions in coordination with the state governments and it has the capacity and capability for disease surveillance outbreak investigation then giving rapid response to contain and combat outbreaks it is also having a separate division which deals with entomology and vector management with reference to diseases and we should know that this center is also dealing with antimicrobial resistance which is an emerging area of concern now let's come to national institute of virology which is often seen in the news see it is one of the major institutes of indian council of medical research it was established in punay in the year 1952 as a virus research center under the support of icmr and rockerfella foundation of usa it was an outcome of the global program of rockerfella foundation for investigating arthropod born viruses however in the year 1967 rockerfella foundation withdraw its support to the center and since then national institute of virology is entirely funded by icmr in 1967 it was also designated as one of the collaborating laboratories of who and in 1969 it started functioning as the regional center of who for southeast asia for arbo virus studies that is any of the group of viruses that are transmitted by mosquitoes ticks or other arthropods i know that this institute is also the national center for hepatitis and influenza now the research areas of niv include cell repository electron microscopy rickets yosus hepatitis influenza and related viruses it also includes clinical virology biochemistry virus registry and also bio statistics so these are some of the important information with reference to the national institute of virology and also the national center for disease control now let's move on to next part of the discussion we have come to the last session the practice questions discussion session this question is with respect to the powers of speaker of lokshaba three statements are given which of the statements given above are not correct first statement the speaker decides whether a bill is a money bill or not and here are his decision on this question is final the statement is correct so it should not be present in the option so eliminate option a now statement two in the absence of the speaker the chairman of rajeshiva presides over a joint sitting of the two houses of the parliament this statement is incorrect so any statement must have this statement in the answer second statement eliminate option b now we have to find out whether third statement is incorrect or not see the decision of speaker on disqualification of a member of the lokshaba on the ground of defection under 10 schedule is subject to judicial review this statement is correct as per the judgments of supreme court particularly the judgment made in the 1992 kihoto holohon case so we can find only the second statement is incorrect therefore the correct answer is option c note that in the absence of speaker a joint sitting will be presided by deputy speaker if deputy speaker is also absent then it will be presided by deputy chairman of rajeshiva this question is with reference to thai one consider the following statements two statements are given which of the statements given above are correct thai one enjoys semi-autonomous status through the principle of one country two systems this statement is incorrect because one country two systems policy is implemented in hong kong and in macaw not in thai one second statement till 1971 thai one represented china and united nations generally we can say this statement is correct till october 1971 it was republic of china or thai one that represented china in united nations so correct answer is option b two only this question is with reference to national center for disease control three statements are given which of the statements given above are correct national institute of communicable diseases was transformed into national center for disease control in 2019 with the larger mandate of controlling the covid-19 pandemic in india now this statement is wrong so easily arrive at the correct answer option b two and three only see the national institute of communicable diseases was renamed as national center for disease control in the year 2009 it was given a larger mandate of controlling emerging diseases and re-emerging diseases second and third statements are correct correct answer is option b two and three only see this question which of the following statements are not correct with reference to maternal mortality ratio the maternal mortality ratio of india has declined in 2016 to 18 this statement is correct as per the recent release of office of the registrar general india of ministry of home affairs the second statement the southern states of india have higher maternal mortality ratio than the national maternal mortality ratio this statement is not correct it is actually lower maternal mortality ratio than the national mmr so the correct answer for this question is option b two only they are asking incorrect statements see this main question in gs2 do you agree with the view that a separate reservation for persons with disability should be made on par or more than the reservation for candidates from scheduled cars scheduled tribe categories discuss for this question you may take valid points from our discussion today and you have to discuss these points in the context of your view with reference to the question with this we come to the end of today's the hindi news analysis if you like the video if you would have enjoyed the content don't fail to click the like button and share this resource among your friends and those who are in need of such resources and subscribe to the shankarai's academy youtube channel to get notified about new updates


That concludes General Questions, the next item of business's first minister's questions. I call Douglas Ross. On Monday, Minutes obtained by the BBC revealed that NHS leaders in Scotland had held secret talks about privatising parts of the NHS. They discussed a two-tier health system where gyda'r prysgriptio a'r prysgriptio. Mae'r planau yn cael ei wneud o'r prinsifol yng Nghymru o'r NHS. Mae'r First Minister wedi cael ei wneud o'r prysgriptio yng Nghymru, ond mae'n cael ei wneud o'r teimlo yn y SNP-run heilserfys yng Nghymru. Mae'r First Minister yn ei wneud o'r prysgriptio, nidMUSIC que galle sgr sabemer yma anodd hynny, nid During the NHS mewn f已t passion converts doesnaraieddNHS i sut gwnaeth i ddau wneud o'r prinsfol sy'n cyfrumpwilled strateg. Rwy'n gwnaeth i sectoriaeth ydw i peolion rhai o ouran, bod fe wnaeth rhai o wneud hyn yn athwyaf neu inni, ond renwad i fynd i ddau'llu am rhen. Rwyf nodi willy, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'r ddaeth o'u myfr? Rwyf nodi'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys sy'n gynnwys ymhergwch, oedd mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwrw? Maes myfyrnyn i ddim yn gwneud yйnaen nhw ymhergwch, maes ymhergwch. Dwi ddim yn gwneud ymhergwch, maes ei fawr yn cael amgylcheddol, nid i dad bumpyf iawn i'r取adau hwnnw. Dydai i eich ddau'r wath yn amlwyd â'r Llywodraeth a'r Ileiddiadau a mae gen Yuidon yn ystod yser wedi'i gŷt i'r gapet bach a'r Llywodraeth i eu ddau i'r Llywodraeth i'i gŷnt yma? Mae gen i rodd yn ies i ddau i'r Llywodraeth, ac maeой yn ech modd yn ei gwyllwch i'r llfaenwyr, ond byddwn ni'n gweld iawn ei fawr o'r eu cyfansuol oherwydd, a wedi'i chafach i'r Cynllun I did an interview on Monday addressing the comments in the minute. The minute is there. I wasn't denying then that the conversation had took place, and I'm not denying now. It was a meeting of some leading NHS directors. As a point of fact, it wasn't NHS board chief executives, but they were conversations not to use another word that Douglas Ross used, because let me let Douglas Ross into what shouldn't be a secret, but he clearly doesn't understand it. NHS leaders, however much respect I have for them and I have considerable respect for them, do not make government policy. The Government makes government policy and the founding principles of the national health service that this government has done more than any to protect and to enhance are not, and as long as I am First Minister, never will be, up for discussion. Douglas Ross. Well, I have to say, I have to say, I think it's very bold for Nicola Sturgeon to stand up and compare Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom on privatisation when we know that in Scotland private treatment is up 84% since the start of the pandemic compared to the rest of the United Kingdom that is half of that, 84% here in Scotland, less than half of that across the rest of the United Kingdom. But as the health secretary passes her some notes, which she passes back against, that's clearly no use, Hamza, let's look at what the actual document said. It said that health boards had the green light from the leadership to come up with and present their ideas for the reforms. The reports of the document said, and I quote, areas that were previously not viable options are now possibilities. So will the First Minister reveal what areas that she wouldn't consider before are now on the table? Given that she has said that the ultimate decision would be with Government ministers, who gave NHS chiefs the green light to consider those plans going forward? Can you imagine Douglas Ross's reaction if I tried to dictate to NHS leaders what they were and weren't allowed to discuss in their meetings? Let's just imagine that for a second. But in direct answer to his question, none of those plans, none of those, and they're not plans, but none of those ideas that would have any impact on the founding principles of the national health service are being discussed or remotely considered by this Government. That can't be clearer, and certainly here in Scotland it's Government that makes Government policy, but Douglas Ross talked about some figures around private health funding, so let me give him some facts on that matter. Let's look at people who self-fund for private care. In Wales, that figure is 30 per cent higher per head than in Scotland. Sorry, Douglas Ross introduced the comparison between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In England, where just in case—and I'm sure that this is not the case, anybody has forgotten—the Conservatives are in Government, that figure is 15 per cent higher per head in England compared to Scotland. Let's look at NHS use of the private sector. In Scotland, total spend on use of the independent sector represents 0.5 per cent of the total front-line health budget. In England, where the Conservatives are in power, that figure is almost 7 per cent, £12.2 billion. This Government will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to privatising the national health service. In fact, this Government will take no lessons from the Conservatives on the NHS, full stop. Douglas Ross. Sadly, in Sturgeon Scotland, no-one is getting any lessons today because teachers are on strike, but let's go back to the figures. The First Minister did not dispute that, since the start of the pandemic, private treatments in Scotland have increased by 84 per cent. In England, the increase has been 39 per cent. Sorry, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the increase has been 39 per cent. Let's go back to the point that I was making. Someone gave the green light within Government. We'd usually expect that green light to come from the health secretary or from the First Minister, but there is clearly a complete breakdown of communication between NHS chiefs and the SNP. The First Minister has literally standing up today and rubbish this meeting of NHS chiefs. She's saying that they are completely wrong. They are apparently acting on their own without ministerial direction. That is what the First Minister said, but the reports clearly state that NHS chiefs here in Scotland are worried about the prospect of a two-tier NHS. If the First Minister is to be believed, NHS chiefs are not listening to the health secretary but are going off to try and fix the NHS on their own, with no Government oversight. Is that not just another confirmation that Hamza Yousaf is out of control with Scotland's NHS? Before the First Minister responds, may I remind members of the requirement to always address one another respectfully?  He talks about a two-tier health service—perhaps he's talking about the one that already exists, where the Conservatives are in government in England. There will not be a two-tier health service while this Government is in office in Scotland, because we are committed to the founding principles of the national health service and always will be. NHS leaders are entitled to discuss what they want, but they do not make Government policy. The Government makes Government policy, and I could not be clearer about that. Of course, this is the Government, and I was health secretary in the early years of this Government. This is the Government that reversed the privatisation of our health service where it had taken place. I was the health secretary that brought Strocathro hospital back into the public sector after Labour privatised it. We were the Government that ended the contracting out of cleaning and catering services that moved away from the ruinously expensive Tory Labour PFI PPP contracts. We were the Government that ended prescription charges in Scotland. We support the founding principles of the NHS, and we always will. Last week, Nicola Sturgeon stood up and said that we should trust her not a shipbuilding expert who had advised the UN. This week, we have to believe that Nicola Sturgeon is not NHS chiefs who run our service here in Scotland. According to the First Minister, Humza Yousaf, apparently, has not lost control, yet nurses are on strike for the first time ever. We have been waiting times at record highs. People cannot see their GPs, and health chiefs are warning of a two-tier system in our NHS. It is quite clear that the First Minister is in complete denial about how badly her health secretary is handling the NHS crisis, in denial about the scale of privatisation in the health service that she oversees, and in denial about Humza Yousaf's two-tier system that is already becoming the norm in Scotland. She has become so distracted, focusing on her own political priorities, that she no longer realises just how bad the situation has got here in Scotland. The minutes of this meeting of NHS chiefs claim that there is a disconnect between what is happening on the front line and what the health secretary thinks is happening. She accused Humza Yousaf of, and I quote their words, being divorced from reality. They are right, aren't they, First Minister? First Minister, no, they are not. Let me set out some facts about the national health service. There is higher funding for the national health service in Scotland than there is for England's Tory run national health service. There is higher staffing per head of population in Scotland than there is in England. Of course, NHS Scotland, thanks to the dedication of every single worker who works in it, is better performing than the NHS in other parts of the UK. This Government will always work to protect the founding principles of the national health service, which is more than can be said—I have to say—when the First Minister is responding to a question, can we ensure that we can only hear the First Minister's voice? That is more than can be said for Douglas Ross, because he wants some reality. Let me give Douglas Ross some reality. Last year, there was an amendment passed in the House of Lords that would have explicitly protected the NHS and excluded it from trade deals that could undermine its founding principles. Tory MPs in the House of Commons voted to remove this protection. Guess who one of those Tory MPs was? Douglas Ross. Even when he gets the chance, he does not stand up for the principles of the national health service. This Government always will. On Monday, the BBC revealed that the NHS crisis created by this Government had got so bad that health leaders had discussed charging for treatment. In response, the health secretary said that that was abhorrent, but the truth is that there is already a two-tier healthcare system in Scotland. Can the First Minister tell the chamber how many procedures were carried out in private hospitals in Scotland in the past year? I will provide that precise figure, but as I have just said to Douglas Ross, the people who are self-fund for private care in Scotland is lower than it is in England, significantly lower. Actually, it is even more significantly lower in Scotland than it is where Labour is in government in Wales. That is the reality, because we protect our national health service in these difficult times and we always will. Anna Sarwar talks about paying for treatment. This was the Government that abolished prescription charges, something that Labour had many opportunities over many years to do and failed completely to do. Just as I won't take them from the Conservatives, I will not take no lessons from Labour on the founding principles of our national health service. Anna Sarwar Perhaps the First Minister wants to take lessons from the people who have actually paid for treatment in Scotland. There were more than 39,000 patients treated privately in Scotland in the past year. That does not include the many private treatments carried out in individual clinics such as dental surgeries. The number of people who are now paying for treatment without health insurance has increased by 72 per cent. Often, those are people who are forced to borrow money, turn to family and friends or even remortgage their homes to get healthcare that should be free at the point of need. I know that the First Minister does not like facts, but let us look at the facts. Almost 2,000 people have gone for private treatment for endoscopies and colonoscopies. Privately, those treatments cost, on average, £1,195. Over 7,800 people have gone private for a cataract surgery. Average cost £2,660. A staggering 3,500 people have had a hip or knee replacement in a private hospital. Average cost £12,500. Those figures make clear that, under the Scottish National Party, healthcare in Scotland is already a two-tier system. Does the First Minister accept that this goes against the founding principles of our NHS—a universal healthcare system—free at the point of need? No, I do not accept that. I do not accept that we have a two-tier health system in Scotland. We will always act to protect the founding principles and we have done more than any other Government to achieve that. The one thing that was missing completely from Anna Sarwar's question there, of course, was reference to a global pandemic that caused the cancellation and the pausing of elected services in our national health service for a considerable period of time. That is why we have seen an increase in those figures in recent years, but those figures remain significantly below the comparable figures in England and in Wales, where, let me remind Anna Sarwar, his own party is in government and running the national health service. As we continue to progress the NHS recovery plan, get more operations done and, within waiting times in the national health service, we will continue to see the benefits of NHS care free at the point of need for everyone across Scotland. The First Minister wants to deny the facts. I do not think that the pandemic is a good enough excuse to say that, because it was a pandemic, it means that it is okay for you to have to go privately to go and pay for treatment. The First Minister denies that we have a two-tier system. In 2021, 40 per cent of all hip and knee replacements that happened in Scotland were paid for privately. That is 3,430 people paying privately to get a hip or knee replacement. Our NHS is at risk because of this Government's choices and this Government's crisis. After 15 years in Government, there is no one else to blame. Take responsibility for your record. Hospital beds cut, nursing and midwifery training places cut, record long waits in A&E, 750,000 Scots on an NHS waiting list and people forced to go into debt to go private, undermining the very principles of our national health service, the Labour Party and our country's greatest ever public service achievement. Does not it get clearer every single day that our NHS is not safe in SNP hands? First Minister, we have record numbers of people working in our national health service significantly more than when this Government took office and significantly more proportionately than any other part of the UK, including where Labour is in Government in Wales. As Sarwar says, the pandemic should not be used as an excuse. I agree with that. Nor can it be ignored in terms of the impact on our national health service. All of the figures that he quotes, he takes no account of the impact of a global pandemic on our national health service. What are we doing? We are building up the capacity of our NHS. I referred in response to Douglas Ross to one of the things that I did when I was health secretary, which brought back into public ownership Stracathro hospital, which had been privatised by the last Labour Administration. Earlier this year, we have brought another private sector hospital, Carrick Glen, in Ayrshire, into public ownership. That facility will be developed to become one of our new national treatment centres, building up the elective capacity of our NHS to treat more people. That is the practical action that this Government is taking, and we are taking that and always will take that while we protect the founding principles of our national health service. I intend to take general and constituency supplementary questions after question 7. Members who have already pressed, please do not repress, but members who wish to put a question on questions 3 to 7, please do so at the appropriate point. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of emergency response to flooding in the north-east of Scotland in recent days. First of all, can I say that my thoughts are with the family and friends of Hazel Nairn, who remains missing after the recent flooding? I know that there has been some distressing news on that this morning. The Scottish Government's resilience room was activated throughout the incident to support the local response. Transport Scotland also activated its multi-agency response team in Transport Scotland resilience room. We will now work with partners to reflect on the response and ensure that any lessons identified are taken on board and built into contingency planning and response arrangements for the future. As the cleanup continues, I want to take the opportunity to thank our emergency services and all local resilience partners, including the voluntary sector, for their on-going work to ensure that those communities that are most affected are kept safe and urgently get the support that they need. I associate myself with those remarks from the First Minister. Please allow me to pay tribute to Hazel Nairn, who tragically went missing during Friday's adverse weather. As the search continues, my thoughts are with her family and the responders on the ground. First Minister, in Berykin, two of the pumps belonging to the town's £16 million flood defences failed, flooding homes and causing extensive damage. Villagers raised concerns with me about the safety of an electrical substation in Inchbear, which was half submerged in water for days. Communities rallied together over the weekend, but improvements need to be made to the organisation of the emergency response to weather events like this. How will the Scottish Government work with local resilience partnerships to expedite the process and reassure people in my region that every possible step has been taken to protect them? I thank Tess White for raising those issues. They are extremely important issues to any community affected by severe weather incidents. In terms of Berykin, again, an important issue to raise. The main flood defence in Berykin contains the south-eisk river held, and that is despite river levels provisionally reported by SIPA being the highest ever on record. It is worth pointing out that, had those defences not been in place, there would have been widespread and potentially dangerous flooding of an estimated 332 properties beyond anything yet experienced by Berykin. However, two of three pump stations that removed surface water from River Street, from run-off and other sources did not start automatically when water was detected. As soon as that was identified, a council officer attended and the pumps were at that stage successfully started. We work closely with local resilience partnerships on an on-going basis, and it is very important that we do so. Anytime there is a severe weather incident like this, we ensure that any appropriate lessons are learned, and that will be the case here, and that will be done as quickly as possible. If there are any issues raised by locals about concerns that I have not touched on today, if those are passed to the Government, we will ensure that they are fed in to that process of reflection and learning of lessons. We are already seeing the effects of the climate emergency with further extreme weather events becoming more likely. The National Infrastructure Commission has argued that Governments should set resilience standards that operators would be required to meet. The UK Government is set to introduce a national resilience strategy, so will the First Minister make the case for the development of resilience standards for vital public infrastructure? I am very happy to look at it. Of course, it is important that those principles are included in all the work that the Scottish Government does as well. The member is right to raise the climate emergency because those severe weather events are being caused by climate change. It is really important that everything that we do recognises that the climate emergency is central to all our infrastructure planning work, and it is important that we continue to develop it in that way. However, I will certainly take that particular proposal and ask the minister concerned to write to the member with further detail about how we will liaise with the UK Government on it. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that gender-based violence is being tackled in Scotland in light of the start tomorrow of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. First Minister, violence against women and girls is abhorrent. That is why equally safe, our strategy to address violence against women and girls is so vital. We have already strengthened legislation, taken action to address the social drivers that perpetuate gender-based violence and invested record levels of funding in front-line services and in supporting survivors. The Domestic Abuse Scotland Act criminalises coercive and controlling behaviour, and we have taken forward work to ensure that those working in the public sector can confidently and sensitively work with those affected by violence against women and girls through equally safe in practice. The delivering equally safe fund provides £19 million this year to support over 120 projects that focus on early intervention prevention, as well as on support services. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Research continues to show an enormous prevalence of gender-based violence in all areas of life. For example, the trade union congress found that more than half of women in the workplace have experienced sexual harassment, but 80 per cent of them did not report it. What is this Government doing to ensure that misogynistic abuse is taken seriously and survivors feel able to report it? This is an extremely important issue. Baroness Helena Kennedy's report on misogyny and the criminal law commissioned by this Government and published earlier this year made several recommendations to address gaps in the law that could be addressed by new criminal offences to tackle misogynistic behaviour. Some of those are, of course, controversial and we are committed to consulting on proposals that would give effect to those recommendations in this parliamentary year. The TUC report underscores the importance of ensuring that victims of misogynistic behaviour do feel empowered to report with confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously by their employer and where criminal activity is alleged by the police as well. This week, a United Nations expert on violence against women has condemned the SNP's gender recognition reforms. The United Nations claims that the bill could allow violent males to access women-only spaces, pausing a risk to the safety for both women and trans women. The expert appealed to the Scottish Government to set aside more time to consider the bill's possible unintended consequences. Does she agree with the United Nations expert that the bill should be postponed so that the legitimate concerns about the women's safety can be addressed? I believe that those who are responsible for violent attacks on women are those who perpetrate those attacks. Where that is, as is very often the case, violent men are violent men that we should be focusing on. They continue to pose the biggest risk to women and I do not believe that we should further stigmatise the trans community because of the actions of violent men. Right now, violent men who want to access women-only spaces do not need a gender recognition certificate to do that. Let us focus on the problem, and when the problem is violent men, that is the one that we should focus on. In terms of the comments by the person from the UN, of course we will respond in full to that. I am not sure that the comments are quite as they were characterised in the question, but the social justice secretary will respond in detail on the issues raised. Many of those issues have been discussed and addressed already by Parliament during stages 1 and 2 of the bill, and of course Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss the bill again at stage 3 of the legislative process shortly. To ask the First Minister how much the Scottish Prison Service has spent on providing free mobile phones to all prisoners. At the start of the pandemic, we took the decision to provide mobile phones to those in custody to maintain vital family communication, including and perhaps especially with children, during what was an incredibly challenging period and when normal visiting, of course, was not possible. Between then and April, the amount spent to date is £4.12 million. First Minister, your Government is slashing budgets for our courts and prisons. Money is tight, we get that. How on earth can mobiles for prisoners at a cost of £4 million and rising be a priority? Taxpayers' money should be spent in front-line services, not freebies for criminals. Those phones have been misused nearly 5,000 times. They have been used to order firebombings, drug dealing and to threaten crime victims. Prison officers tell me that those SNP-issued phones are putting them in danger by fueling violence between inmates. When, First Minister, will you bin this costly and dangerous policy? First Minister? Russell Findlay is right about one thing. Budgets are extremely tight. They are tight because of Tory economic mismanagement and Tory erosion of our budgets. Coming to the issue at hand, prison is yes about punishment but prison should also be about rehabilitation. It is important that we do not lose focus on that. The mobile phone provision, which I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong about this—is something the UK Government did during the pandemic. That is about ensuring connections between prisoners and families, including children, which is important to rehabilitation, which is important to reducing offending and re-offending. We will continue to consider all those issues carefully, but we will consider them in the context of a justice system that punishes criminals. That is extremely important, but one that seeks to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and reduce re-offending, because that is in the overall interests of communities across the country. Question 6, Stephanie Callaghan. I am suspending business for a moment. We will resume. At question 6, I call Stephanie Callaghan. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Supreme Court decision regarding legislating on an independence referendum. Of course, I am disappointed by it. I respect and accept the Supreme Court's judgment on the Lord Advocate's reference regarding the Scottish Parliament's powers to legislate for an independence referendum. However, the denial of democracy by Westminster parties demonstrates now beyond any doubt that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is not now if it ever was a reality. It remains open to the UK Government to respect democracy and to reach an agreement with the Scottish Government for a lawful constitutional democratic referendum. However, regardless of attempts by Westminster to block democracy, I will always work to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and that the future of Scotland is always in Scotland's hands. Stephanie Callaghan. Yesterday's ruling has profound implications for the UK and Scotland's democracy, particularly as you mentioned the notion of the UK being a voluntary partnership of nations. If the UK Government wants to evidence that this is a voluntary union, all they have to do is stop standing in the way of democracy, come to the table and reach an agreement over holding a legal referendum with the Scottish Government. Why does the First Minister think that they are continuing to shy away from this? Well, unionist Westminster politicians want to silence Scotland's voice because they are scared of what Scotland might say. It is quite simple. Any politician who was confident of their case and confident of being able to persuade others of their case would not be trying to block democracy. They would be embracing democracy. I think that we know everything that we need to know about the views of Westminster unionist parties by their determination to block Scotland's democracy, but it will not prevail. Unionist politicians, with some critical faculties and perhaps the power of independent thinking, probably understand that yesterday's judgment raises profoundly uncomfortable questions about the basis and the future of the United Kingdom. Any partnership in which one partner needs the consent of another to choose its own future is not voluntary and it is not even a partnership. Within the UK right now, it is the case that England could decide to become independent, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland supposedly cannot. That is not a partnership, that is not voluntary and that is not equal, but Scotland's voice will not be silenced. Scotland's future is up to the people of Scotland and that will always be the case. First Minister Douglas Ross keeps saying that no-one on these benches is asked how he would stay in the union, while the answer is simple. Win an election with that in the manifesto and you get to dictate the terms. With that in mind, this Scottish Parliament has the biggest ever majority for an independence referendum in the history of the evolution, but it has been blocked from enacting that mandate. Can the First Minister inform the Parliament if she has had any indication from the UK Government as to how the people of Scotland can exercise their democratic right and have a choice in their future? The mandate for an independence referendum in this Parliament is undeniable. There is a clear majority for that. In any other measure of democracy in any other country, we would not have politicians seeking to deny that. I stand ready to discuss this issue with the UK Government at any time. I fully anticipate, though, that their democracy denial will continue, at least in the short term, because they are scared of the outcome of a democratic process. However, I watched Douglas Ross and others squirming on this issue yesterday on television. On the one hand, I am trying to say that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union, but on the other hand, I am gleefully trying to defend the fact that Scotland has no way of choosing a different future. It is not democratic, it is not sustainable. Let us have a proper process and let the people of Scotland decide our own future. When asked by Glenn Campbell during a BBC debate two days before the Hollywood election, what voters should do who, and I quote, want you, Nicola Sturgeon, as First Minister, but do not want independence, the First Minister confidently said that she should vote for me? Why now are her colleagues claiming that these voters support independence? Is this the same deep-seated duplicity that we can expect to see in any de facto independence referendum at the next general election? If the Tories are now reduced to suggesting that people in Scotland did not know that I supported a referendum, then the Tories are even more desperate than I thought they were. Douglas Ross is saying that it is just quoting my own words. Let me offer this, Presiding Officer. If the Tories do not think that my words were clear enough in the election last year, how about their words? The Tory message could not have been clearer. They said that if the SNP wins the election, there will be a referendum. The only way to stop it is to vote Tory. That seems pretty clear to me, Presiding Officer. Guess what? The SNP won the election. It is time to have a referendum. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that refugees from Ukraine have suitable accommodation on arrival in Scotland. With more than 21,500 arrivals from Ukraine with a Scottish sponsor, Scotland continues to provide sanctuary to more displaced people from Ukraine per head than any other part of the UK. I want to thank people across Scotland for their efforts in achieving that. Our priority, of course, is to ensure the immediate needs of those arriving are met, though we are clear that we do not want anyone to spend more time than absolutely necessary in welcome accommodation. While we are ensuring that we have that welcome and temporary accommodation, which is safe and suitable, we are also taking forward a number of actions focused on providing sustainable longer-term accommodation for those who are here and still arriving. That will include a new Scottish-led host recruitment campaign that will launch at the end of the month. I thank the First Minister for that answer and refer members to my register of interest. The First Minister will be aware of the acute housing crisis in Edinburgh. The current contract for MS Victoria is due to end in January 2023. Figures published by the Scottish Government show that more than 1,200 people are currently on the ship. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the capacity provided by the ship is retained? Will she urgently look to expand the criteria for the £50 million housing fund for local authorities, which is largely unspent, to include purchasing property from the market and working with agents to retrofit buildings? Will the First Minister confirm continued funding for the city's welfare hub? We will continue to provide support. Yes. Those are very real issues, and Sarah Boyack is right to raise them. They are issues that all countries that have stepped up to help Ukrainians are facing right now. I was speaking with the T-shirt at the British Irish Council just a couple of weeks ago. The Republic of Ireland is dealing with those issues, too. I know that the Welsh Government is well and, indeed, the UK Government in respect of England. It is right that we have welcomed as many Ukrainians as possible. It is right now that we work through those challenges. I know that Neil Gray has been keeping members and Parliament as a whole updated. The £50 million longer-term resettlement fund is important. Of course, we will continue to look at the eligibility for that. That is helping us to bring void properties back into use. We are also investing heavily in our wider affordable housing programme, and we will continue to do that. Specifically, in relation to those displays from Ukraine, of course, we will continue to work with Edinburgh City Council and local authorities across Scotland to ensure that that support can continue. Let me take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to local councils who have done fantastic work on that. Those are not easy challenges for any Government to navigate, but we have a model obligation to do so, and we will continue to work hard to ensure that we are doing right by those from Ukraine who need our support and help and welcome. Members know that, as part of the UK, Scotland's budget is tied to the poor decisions made by the Tory Government at Westminster. However, there is another strain on public finances in Scotland, namely the repayment of private finance initiative debts, designed by the Tories, and rolled out by an enthusiastic Labour party. Can the First Minister set out the current annual bill for Scotland's health service from Labour's decision to build hospitals, including hair mayors, in my East Kilbride constituency, using this reckless and costly scheme, as well as any impacts of the current cost crisis on these debts? Just for clarity, this is general and constituency supplementaries. This question highlights one of the ironies of previous lines of questioning in the session of First Minister's Questions. Since 2006-07, the cumulative bill to taxpayers for the cost of Tory Labour's ruinously expensive PFI-PPP contracts is £3.2 billion. That is £2 billion over and above the initial capital value of those projects, with costs increasing because of inflation. Right now, we are currently paying every year more than £250 million for those contracts commenced under previous Administrations. That includes, of course, Hair Mayors hospital. The record of this Government, in line with our record of protecting the national health service, is one of unpicking Tory Labour PFI-PPP contracts. Adrien McCartney spoke to the Sunday Post last year and shared her harrowing story about how time after time the police and prosecutors let her down on a case of domestic abuse. The Sunday Post revealed last Sunday that, sadly, Adrien has since passed away. Her solicitor said the following.  First Minister, one leading academic believes that the statistic for those who are dying of domestic abuse could be six times higher than official statistics due to ill health and, of course, suicide. Given that we are putting such a focus on the elimination of violence against women this week in the Parliament, can I ask quite simply why is the justice system currently in Scotland failing so many vulnerable women? Secondly, what legislation is the First Minister and her Government proposing to bring forward to address those horrific crimes against women? First Minister? Firstly, can I take the opportunity to convey my deep heartfelt sympathies to the family and friends of Adrien? Obviously, police and prosecutors operate independently of government, so I won't go into details that would stray upon their independent roles. What I will say, and I've said many times before, I don't believe that Scotland or any country for that matter yet does enough when it comes to preventing and responding to domestic abuse. The justice system has got a very large part to play in all of that, but as I was reflecting earlier on today, we need to do more to tackle the behaviours that cause domestic abuse and prevent it in the first place. I know that the Lord Advocate is a big advocate for and champion of this. The justice system has to respond better to support victims of domestic abuse as well, and I know that this is a real priority for her. I've already spoken about the Helena Kennedy report on misogyny. We have proposals from Lady Dorian on how the justice system deals with cases of sexual violence, sexual fences and that will include domestic abuse. The Government will bring forward many of those proposals in legislative form over the remainder of this Parliament. Some of them will be controversial and I would expect very rigorous debate and scrutiny in this Parliament, but I hope that, as we are considering those proposals, that very good question from Jamie Greene will stay in our minds and that we will find ways to unite to make the necessary improvements to our justice system so that victims of domestic abuse are not let down here in Scotland, as they are here too often and indeed as they are in countries across the world. Jackie Baillie to be followed by Clare Adamson. The breast screening programme was paused for all women during the pandemic and paused even longer for women over 70. It would appear that a further restriction has been applied and women over 75 are being denied breast cancer screening. My constituent who raised this with me describes this decision as discriminatory and agist. Can the First Minister advise whether the restriction is just in Greater Glasgow and Clyde or does it apply Scotland-wide? If so, will she reverse the decision? I will ask the health secretary to write to the member on the detail of that, because it is important that we make sure that that is right. On the restoration of the breast screening for the age groups for which breast screening is advised, that has already happened. In terms of the older age groups, which are on a self-referro basis, that has been done in a phased way, but I will come back to Jackie Baillie via the health secretary on the detail of that. I say one thing finally, as somebody who is responsible for all the decisions that were taken during the pandemic. Those decisions were not taken lightly. The pausing of the screening programmes, including the breast screening programme, was one that I know was agonised over by the then chief medical officer and by others, of course, responsible for those decisions. It is important that we get those right and that we prioritise those for whom breast screening is recommended, which is what has been done. Of course, as part of the overall recovery plan for the national health service, our priority is to get all services back to functioning, as they were before the pandemic and as people have a right to expect. Following the UK regulations adopted by the Financial Conduct Authority for funeral planning companies, a number of companies have subsequently gone into administration, including safe hands, funeral plans and One Life. Some of my constituents are left worried as to whether they will get any of their money back. Research shows that such saving schemes are overwhelmingly used by the most financially vulnerable. Can the First Minister offer any advice and support that is currently available for those affected? Has the Scottish Government had any engagement with the UK Government in relation to calls for a UK support scheme to be set up? I thank Clare Adamson for raising what is not just an important issue but an extremely sensitive issue. We welcomed regulation of this sector, which we had been pressing the UK Government to do for some time. The UK Government's action, however, has come rather late and too late for some people. I understand that dignity is currently honouring safe hands, funeral plans and I welcome that support. Regulation is a reserved matter and I encourage the UK Government to look at the situation and consider whether it should provide additional support. If Clare Adamson wishes to pass on any details of affected constituents, I will ensure that the relevant minister looks at it and raises it with the UK Government. The Scottish Government also provides support for funeral costs through funeral support payment and I encourage anyone who may be eligible to apply. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Martin Whitfield. In February, I asked what action the Scottish Government was taking after a survey showed that nearly half of our dedicated, hard-working teachers in Aberdeen were considering quitting due to high levels of physical and verbal abuse. At best, the First Minister's answer was vague and non-committal. Yesterday evening, following physical and verbal violence, Northfield Academy in Aberdeen escalating, teachers at Northfield voted in favour of industrial action over concerns for the safety of staff. Teachers should never be subjected to violence whether verbal or physical. As nothing has apparently changed since February, I ask again what is this Government doing now to stop this appalling abuse? The First Minister. No teacher should ever experience abuse in the classroom, and I hope that that is something that would unite us across this chamber. Of course, the employer of teachers are local authorities, and I would expect—I know that local authorities take this seriously—them to have support in place for teachers and to support the wellbeing of teachers. I am indeed meeting with the president of COSLA later today, and we will happily discuss what more the Scottish Government can do to support that. It is vitally important that we support teachers in a range of ways and, indeed, other public sector workers and other workers generally who interact with the public to ensure that they are free from and safe from any abuse or attacks whatsoever. Martin Woodfield. I am very grateful. Following the First Minister's correction to the official report on that energy consumption, will the First Minister's new understanding of the facts cause the Scottish Government to reconsider its stance on all forms of net zero energy, for example nuclear powers in the south of Scotland, which, as the First Minister can see, plays a vital role in energy security? My understanding of Scotland's energy potential is, as it has always been. Scotland is blessed with vast renewable energy potential, and this Government will focus on not just talking that up instead of talking it down, like so many of the other parties in this chamber do, but we will focus on supporting the growth of renewable energy, offshore wind, onshore wind, hydrogen and green hydrogen energy. The fact of the matter is that Scotland is one of the luckiest countries in the world when it comes to energy, and it is our job to maximise that potential.


I am going to move from the sublime to the mundane to give you a sense of how Asia has transformed itself in the wider context of the world economy during the past 50 years. I will begin with a historical perspective to pick up where Ron left off, the beginning of the decline and fall of Asia in starting 1820 and until about 1960 when Mirdal was writing, and then turn to what I call, for one, to forbid a phrase, the rise of Asia, beginning circa 1970, and that continues. But this rise has been associated with a development that is most uneven between regions in Asia, just as it has been associated with outcomes that are most unequal between countries within regions, between regions within countries, between people within countries. And the most important lesson that emerges from this is the diversity in the development of Asia. And what I might say in conclusion is to learn from that experience. Now, let me begin with the historical perspective. On the decline and fall of Asia in the world economy, beginning 1820, and if you were to see this picture on the shares of the West and the rest in world GDP, you would see that the share of Asia, which was 56.5% in 1820, had declined to less than 15% in 1962. And this decline and fall was concentrated largely in China and India, which together made up 50% of world GDP in 1820, but less than 8% in 1962. Indonesia stayed at a little bit over 1% through this era. Now, what is striking is the asymmetry in the share of population and of GDP. So if you see the share of Asia in world population and world GDP, you see an asymmetry that rises dramatically in a period of 130 years. But in sharp contrast, you see Latin America, where GDP, its share in GDP rises faster than its share in population. So this was in a sense the golden age for Latin America. And for Africa, where the share in both income and GDP is low and population is low, but the asymmetry is not very high. Now, the contrast is striking if you look at the three big countries in Asia. You can see that the share of China in world population declines, but its share in world income collapses. Just as the share of India in world population declines just a little, but its share in world income collapses just as much. Indonesia remains roughly symmetrical, but much smaller than both. Now, this period was associated with what has been called the great divergence in per capita incomes. So if you take Western Europe and North America as the benchmark, as a hundred, you would see that every part of the world experienced a divergence with respect to the West, but that in Asia, much more than in Africa, much more than in Latin America, there was a massive divergence. So Asia's GDP per capita was one-half that in the West in 1820, but less than one-tenth that in 1962, and you see that mirror image, particularly in China and in India. Now, in sharp contrast, the period beginning circa 1970 shows a dramatic reversal of the trends that we witness in the preceding 130 years, and you see a catching up process that gathers momentum beginning 1990, and it continues. So if we look at Asia in the world economy, in terms of its GDP and GDP per capita, you would see that the share of Asia in world GDP, not in PPP terms, but in current prices and market exchange rates, goes from less than 9% in 1970 to almost 30% in 2016, while its share in the GDP of developing countries goes from one-half to more than three-fourths. Now, this is mirrored to some extent in GDP per capita, as the GDP per capita in Asia as a percentage of that in developing countries goes from two-thirds to more than 100%, and in the world from one-sixth to one-half, although the income gap between Asia and the western world, or industrialized countries, is still very large. And a bird's-eye view of how the rising significance of Asia in the world economy, in terms of population, GDP, and GDP per capita, if we look at the period 1970 to 2016, this comes through. Now, underlying this transformation that we see of Asia's significance in the world economy is differences in growth rates. So if you see, take the entire period, you can look at it by decades, it gathers momentum after 1990, but GDP in Asia grew at almost 6% per annum over these five decades, okay, or four-and-a-half decades, as compared with industrialized countries that grew at 2.5% per annum or the world that grew at 3% per annum. And as population growth rates in Asia slowed down, you would see that GDP per capita over this entire period grew by 4% per annum in Asia, as compared with less than 2% per annum in industrialized countries and about 1% in the world as a whole, because both Latin America and Africa did badly, particularly during their lost decades. Now, there is also a concentration, there is also a remarkable, what I call the great leap in industrialization on the part of Asia. You know, as a percentage of world manufacturing value added, Asia's contribution in 1970 was less than 4%. And even in 2000, it was a little over 10%, but by 2016, it was more than 40%. Now, that was to a significant extent attributable to China, but by no means only to China. Now, this remarkable development of Asia has been very uneven. If we were to disaggregate by some regions, East, Southeast, South and West Asia, if we were to look at the GDP and GDP per capita of these regions in comparison with the world, or if we could look at the growth rates in GDP or GDP per capita in these subregions, or the concentration of industrialization, manufacturing value added, it is actually quite stunning how unequal it has been. This is Asia disaggregated by subregions. If we look at GDP and GDP per capita in comparison with the world, so for Asia, as I said, it rises from 9% to 30%, but East Asia goes from 3.3 to almost 18%, South East Asia 1 to 3.5%, South Asia 2.5 to almost 4%. All of them go up, but East Asia makes the bulk of the increase, and if we look at GDP per capita, it is even more striking because East Asia had a GDP per capita in 1970. That was about one-eighths, a little more than one-eighth that in the world, and it is now about nine-tenth that in the world. There was a catch-up similarly in GDP per capita for Southeast Asia, which is quite significant from 15% to 40% of world GDP per capita, but South Asia remained the laggard in the story. So there is a huge disparity in the rising shares of GDP of Asia subregions and in GDP per capita levels in these subregions, and it is no surprise that the answer lies in the disparity in growth rates, in GDP and in GDP per capita. So in these 45 years, East Asia grows at more than 8% per annum, South East Asia and South Asia both at 5.5% per annum, West Asia much less, and in per capita income East Asia at 7% per annum, South East Asia and South Asia both at 3.5% per annum, which is unprecedented as it were in human history. If you look at the period in which Western Europe and North America grew. Now, what is striking, of course, as I said, is the concentration in industrialization. So you see East Asia going from less than 1% in 1970, a world manufacturing added, to almost 30%. South East Asia from less than 1% to 4.5%, South Asia from 1.5% to about 4%. So it is mostly East Asia and that's China, Korea, Taiwan. But it is clear that outcomes have been most unequal. Between subregions in Asia, you have a leading East Asia and a lagging South Asia with South Asia somewhere in the middle. There are growing inequalities between countries within regions, so that there are emerging divergences in Asia in each of its regions. And if you compare the fate of the least developed countries, there is a massive divergence ongoing. So when Francois Bourguignon was sizing about diminishing inequality between countries, we need to recognize that this catch-up in Asia is producing some equalization but a lot of unequalization too. Now, this is just a striking between regions within countries, Java in Indonesia, the Eastern coast in China compared with the West in hinterland, the East, the West and the South of India compared with the North and the East. There is a growing disparity between regions and among people within countries, poverty as we saw in the morning session is falling everywhere in terms of headcount measures, but inequality is rising everywhere. Now, this is just to give you an idea of how I focused on regions so far, but what is striking is the concentration in a few countries. Now, you can see the share of China and world in Asia's GDP was 30% in 1970, 50% in 2016. By contrast, the share of India in Asia's GDP was 20% in 1970, but only 10% in 2016. Nevertheless, China and India are giants in this story. Now, in conclusion, I want to say that what characterizes this economic and social transformation in Asia, I situated it in the context of the world, but if you look at it within countries, whether it's demographic indicators, social indicators, economic indicators, the transformation is phenomenal. But there is a diversity. A, it is clear that there are alternatives in development. There are no unique parts. Asian countries have followed different parts to development. This has been shaped in part by their size, population, geography, partly by their resource natural endowments, partly by their history, partly by their context. The relationship between the state and the market in the process of development has not only evolved over time in each of these countries, but has been markedly different across these countries. So that one size does not fit all. You know, for countries that stress markets and openness, it was about minimizing market failure. The emphasis was on getting prices right and buying the skills and technologies needed for industrialization. For countries that stress state intervention with different degrees of moderated, calibrated or controlled openness, it was about minimizing government failure. But the degree and nature of openness also varied very significantly. There were a few that were largely open, but in many this openness was restricted, calibrated or in fact very carefully managed as in the large countries in India and China. The relative importance of the domestic and external in terms of markets, resources and technology was amazing. So that your countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, which relied on foreign markets, foreign resources, foreign technologies, you had South Korea and Taiwan that relied on external markets but domestic resources and technologies. And you had China and India, which for a long period relied on domestic markets, domestic resources and domestic technologies. And the diversity was just as striking in the governments and in the politics of Asia, which ranged from socialist countries on the one hand to near-lacifer economies on the other, but with a few democratic regimes, mostly authoritarian regimes, one party states, one family states, and that diversity too is amazing. And yet contrary to Middhal's expectations, almost everywhere the state played an important role in catalyzing development. And the questions we want to ask in this study is what can the leaders, what can the laggards learn from the leaders in Asia in terms of catching up or being caught in middle-income tracks? What can leaders learn from their own past in terms of sustaining development? And indeed, last but not least, I don't have time to develop this idea on the importance of unlearning from experience, which has been quite critical to the success stories in Asia. Let me stop here and invite Will Martin to comment on what we have said.