Chamber and committees

Thank you very much for that. That is another issue that is close to my heart, so thank you very much again for raising those points. Convener, I am conscious of time, but thank you very much for that.

I thank everyone for their contributions so far. This is a hugely important topic. Our discussion has brought to light how much work needs to be undertaken, by both the committee and the Scottish Government, to consider not only how we prevent suicide but how we ensure that the right support and funding are in place to support everyone who is going through what must be a hugely difficult time.

I will focus more on issues that are affecting men, because the statistics and the facts speak for themselves: 75 per cent of people who died by suicide in 2021 were men. At the start of the meeting, we heard from Neil Mathers the statistic that men are three times more likely than women to die by suicide. Although we need to look across different groups of people, and some will fall into more than one group within society, we must also focus on why that is happening, in particular among men in certain age groups and demographics. We must also ask why that has not been brought more to the forefront of the Scottish Government’s strategy and what it needs to do to address that issue.

I will start with a question for Jason Schroeder. Earlier, you mentioned having a strategy and said that we should not be scared to look at different groups on their own. Will you expand on that a little, from your experiences with men’s sheds, to re-emphasise not only their importance but the recent difficulties that you have experienced with funding for that vital project?

It is one that we do not speak of at all.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the LGBT Youth Scotland pilot programme to introduce youth clubs in schools. (S6T-01938)

It has been widely reported that Scottish primary schools are appointing children as LGBT champions and asking pupils as young as four whether they are transgender. That is part of a project that was set up by LGBT Youth Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government, using taxpayers’ money. Parents are outraged by some of the materials that have been distributed by schools that have signed up to those youth clubs.

My understanding is that LGBT Youth Scotland’s charitable constitution clearly states that the age range that its activities covers is from 13 to 25 years old, which is of course outwith the age of children in primary schools. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether LGBT Youth Scotland is in breach of its charitable constitution and whether she has any grip on what is happening in our schools?

I mentioned in my previous question that parents are concerned by the LGBT Youth Scotland scheme. That is not coming from me; it is coming from parents who are speaking to me about those issues and who want them to be voiced in Parliament. Recent reports have outlined that a mother had to change her daughter’s school after it emerged that, within months of joining an LGBT club, her daughter announced in a Christmas card to her family that she had become their trans son and signed off with the preferred name. The problem is that the school did not tell the parents that their daughter had been using a different name in school for months. The school had signed up to the charter scheme that is run by the Scottish National Party funded charity LGBT Youth Scotland.

The Government has slowly been eroding the role of parents in school settings. We need only look at the named persons act to see a prime example of that. Why will the Government not allow kids to be kids? Will the cabinet secretary review the LGBT Youth Scotland programme to ensure that young people are provided with appropriate materials and that parents are not excluded from their child’s learning experience?

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

I spent last week trying to secure a statement from the Government on the Cass review and puberty-suppressing hormones. Every single attempt was voted down or refused. Finally, after confirmation from the health board of a pause in puberty-suppressing hormones for new patients, we have a statement today, but I do not know why the minister bothered, because it will offer no comfort whatsoever to families who have been failed by gender care services in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s direction of travel on this vitally important issue is as clear as mud. The statement does not confirm whether the Government will implement any of the review’s 32 recommendations, nor does it address the cut to gender care services. The Government claims that it supports young people who are experiencing gender distress, yet members of it have publicly dismissed the findings of an evidence-based expert report.

Today’s exercise in kicking the can down the road and stalling for more time shows that the Government is more concerned about holding together its fragile pact with the dogmatic Greens than about healthcare for vulnerable young people.

When will parents and young people receive a meaningful update? Can the minister assure Parliament that all Government ministers will follow the science rather than ideology?

Kevin Stewart has been chuntering away on this issue from a sedentary position.

There should be an urgent ministerial statement so that the SNP can outline what the announcement means and so that MSPs can ask appropriate questions. However, with the SNP and the Scottish Greens’ approach to scrutiny this week, I doubt that that statement will ever take place.

Therefore, given that the timing of the official announcement this morning did not allow for an urgent question to be submitted before the deadline, I seek to move a motion without notice to suspend rule 13.8.1 of standing orders, so that the 10 am deadline can be removed for today to allow for an urgent question on this topic. Presiding Officer, will you accept my moving a motion that, under rule 17.2.1(a), this Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting?

—I seek to move a motion without notice that, under rule 17.2.1(a) of standing orders, the Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting.

I think that the groans say everything, Presiding Officer.

On Tuesday, I asked what more MSPs must do in the chamber to raise important issues on behalf of their constituents. The Scottish Government has had every opportunity to make a statement on the Cass review and on whether it will pause the prescription of puberty blockers to children, but it has refused to do so. Arrogance has gotten in the way of protecting some of the most vulnerable children right across Scotland.

The question that I have for the Government is: was it worth it? This morning, MSPs read on social media that the prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones is to be paused in Scotland. However, I find that rather odd, because we have been told repeatedly this week that the minister and the Government needed sufficient time to carefully consider the findings. I wonder whether the Scottish Government developed the skill of speed reading overnight.

If the Government was going to make this announcement anyway, why did the Scottish National Party and the Greens not vote for the statement that I proposed yesterday? That would have allowed the Government to announce in the Parliament that puberty blockers were to be paused, and it would have allowed MSPs to ask questions that the SNP has been hiding from all week.

The Government has tried to silence MSPs in this Parliament, and that is a disgrace. It seems content to leak to the press the news that puberty blockers will be paused before having the decency to update the Parliament, treating the Presiding Officer and the Parliament with utter contempt.

I am beyond fed up with this Government and its lackadaisical approach to gender care. [Interruption.]