Chamber and committees

Further to my point of order this morning, Presiding Officer, in the light of your previous ruling and the new information that has been made available through the press on the Government’s announcement to pause the prescription of puberty blockers for children and young people—[Interruption.]

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.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will review the current model of care for children with gender dysphoria. (S6O-03301)

Yesterday, I raised concerns about the ability of elected members to seek a statement from the Scottish National Party Government on the Cass review. I have tried as many levers as possible to allow MSPs to raise questions about the Cass review findings and whether the Government will adopt all 32 recommendations.

The review has been years in the making and the Government has had more than a week since the review report was submitted. If John Mason will afford me the opportunity to do so, I will go into examples of other countries that happen to be following the pathway that is set out in the Cass review.

In his response yesterday, George Adam said that

“the Cass review deals with services in NHS England, not in NHS Scotland.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; c 5.]

That is true. However, his response shows a clear lack of a basic understanding of the overall picture. Scottish children do not respond differently to puberty-suppressing hormones from children in England. If he had read the report, he would also know that Scotland is referenced in it. The notion that Scotland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom is for the birds. Whether George Adam and his Government like it or not, the Cass review raises serious concerns about gender care, especially around psychological support, assessments and evidence.

Many MSPs have reiterated the importance of making sure that the conversation is respectful. I agree. That is why I have been calling for a statement, so that all opinions can be expressed and so that we can finally get some answers from the Government.

I have tried to get answers again today. During health and social care portfolio question time, I asked the simple question,

“will the Scottish Government adopt the recommendations of the Cass review, including limiting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones?”

I did not get an answer.

Nor did Carol Mochan get an answer when she asked when a ministerial statement would be given. There was no response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. I will give way to the minister if she is able to give us a date just now.

There is nothing.

Portfolio question time does not give enough time to scrutinise a report of nearly 400 pages. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not want to talk about the review, as it has been dodging every opportunity to make a statement. The worst of it is that Scotland will end up being an outlier. Other countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, are implementing policies that are similar to the recommendations that are contained in the Cass review. [Interruption.]

The SNP cannot bring itself—[Interruption.]—to put a pause on puberty blockers until a final decision is made on the future of gender care in Scotland, but it needs to understand that caution must be used when we look at this issue. Children and young people cannot wait weeks or months for the Government to get its act together. We have heard every excuse, despite the issue of puberty blockers and gender care having been raised by MSPs in the chamber for years. I will continue to raise the issue not just because I am deeply concerned about the lack of evidence to protect our children, but because the Government cannot be allowed to bury its head in the sand any longer.

I will finish by repeating what I said yesterday, which is that

“Parents, carers, young people and those who have been failed by gender-affirming care in Scotland”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; c 4.]

need and “deserve answers”. The Scottish Government is failing them by refusing to respond.

Therefore, I move amendment S6M-12867.1, after

“followed by Financial Resolution: Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”

to insert—

“Ministerial Statement: Scottish Government Response to the Cass Review”.

The minister will be aware of my efforts to secure a ministerial statement on the Cass review, as a portfolio questions session is not enough time in which to scrutinise a near-400-page report. The Scottish Government may not wish to talk about the issue, but parents, campaigners and young people deserve answers. I ask the minister a simple yes or no question: will the Scottish Government adopt the recommendations of the Cass review, including limiting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones?

Keith Brown really needs to look at his own Government’s spending and the amount of money that has been squandered over the years by this SNP Government. That money could easily have been diverted into areas and sectors that need it most—including, by the way, our culture sector, which we are debating this afternoon.

If the Government is being completely transparent with the public, work should have been done on that. However, I have yet to see anything that shows the reality of what the SNP’s overall aim is.

That brings me to the case study that has been used, which is Quebec. Using another pro-separation movement as a benchmark for the paper is, in my view, not the right thing to do. It is not credible, and it certainly does not give the full picture of what the overall policy aims are. That was highlighted by National Galleries Scotland during the consultation stage for the strategy, when it said:

“We believe that a light-touch approach to furthering cultural relations that builds on the existing strengths of Scotland’s cultural sector will likely bring more benefits than a heavy-handed ‘top-down’ approach from Government that links culture too closely with explicit foreign policy aims.”

The Government motion is typical of the SNP. It does not address the priorities of the sector here but is in favour of promoting the SNP and its priorities elsewhere. In my view, that is definitely and absolutely the wrong way round. It will not help anyone in the sector in the long term.

In launching the document, Angus Robertson said:

“Our festivals, vibrant music scene and rich cultural heritage bring people from across the world to Scotland.”

That is true, of course, but, as I raised in my exchange with the cabinet secretary, there are concerns about the future of the Edinburgh fringe. Not only I but others say that, and it has been reported in the press. Gail Porter is an example of a big name who is being priced out of attending the festival in her home city due to overpriced accommodation.

That raises another problem for Scotland’s culture sector. Laws and policies that have been brought in by the Government, such as those on short-term lets, are having a detrimental impact on our culture sector. When it comes to suggestions and being helpful, I hope that the cabinet secretary understands the concerns that are being raised. If the fringe is reduced from its current capacity, a huge part of our culture will go with it, including platforms for new talent and the huge local economic advantages that it brings. It would be a travesty if anything should happen to the fringe, and the Scottish Government would have something to do with that, through bringing in incompatible legislation.

I do not have too much time left, but I will quickly summarise the points that I have made. The culture sector needs a Government that is focused on fixing the issues that have been created domestically by the SNP-Green coalition. It needs a Government that is working on an international strategy, not rehashing independence documents and pretending that it has all the priorities right. It also needs a light-touch approach from the Government, not a heavy-handed policy vehicle that links culture too closely with its own foreign policy aims.

I move amendment S6M-12845.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“believes that Scotland’s culture is among the most vibrant in the world and should be promoted internationally; recognises that some of the points in the International Culture Strategy can help to promote Scotland’s culture overseas, but that the document provides another forum for the Scottish Government to promote independence and grievance-mongering; further recognises that local tourism and cultural services have not reopened or are being forced to close, and compels the Scottish Government to dedicate more time to restoring Scotland’s cultural sector.”

On the point about enhancing culture in Scotland, is the cabinet secretary concerned about the comments that were made recently about the Edinburgh fringe, and does he agree that urgent action is needed to ensure that we do not lose one of the biggest events that people come to Scotland to see?