Chamber and committees

We are failing children and young people. There should be an urgent—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to convey my utmost dismay at the utter shambles that has unfolded this week over the Scottish Government’s handling of the Cass review findings. [Interruption.]

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?

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”.

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.”

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for being guilty of not doing that.

I associate myself with the remarks that the cabinet secretary made about Scott Williamson, the New Zealand honorary consul to Scotland.

There are many areas in which Angus Robertson and I will disagree when it comes to the constitution and how best to expand Scotland’s international culture. However, I begin with a point of consensus that is often overlooked when we partake in debates in the chamber, which is that we are all passionate about Scotland. Being elected to the Scottish Parliament comes with a responsibility to do everything that we can to make Scotland the best possible place to live, work and invest in, and to visit. We have some of the most breathtakingly beautiful landscapes in the world, and we have a deep-rooted history that makes us who we are today as Scots. We want Scotland to be the best that it can be, and we want to make sure that our heritage and our culture are protected. That is who we are as a nation. We are fiercely proud.

Scotland’s culture is among the most vibrant in the world and it should, of course, be promoted internationally. However, to grow our culture sector internationally, we must first ensure that it is thriving here in Scotland. To do that, the Scottish Government must focus on the domestic challenges that our culture sector is facing. We must harness the power of our culture sector before it is too late.

Our culture sector has been through the mill in recent times—of that there can be no doubt. A successful business model needs strong foundations in order to grow. If the domestic flagship model is not working, it is impossible to expand our global reach. Covid-19 certainly had an impact on the sector, but we are now two years on and we still need a long-term plan—not just an international plan—to restore and grow our culture sector. Many local tourism and culture services have not reopened their doors, and, too frequently, we see reports that many are being forced to close their doors for good. Recently, we heard that VisitScotland is closing its centres. They are the most recent casualties in a long line of tourism businesses that have suffered from savage Scottish Government cuts.

The Scottish Government needs to address those domestic challenges. Otherwise, we will not have the heritage, historical and cultural landmarks to promote internationally. Our creative industries are very important to us. They contribute more than £5 billion to our economy each year and they provide some 90,000 jobs. When Scotland’s artists fear for the future of Scottish culture, we should stop and listen. That is not just my opinion; it is shared by writers and film makers after the closure of a film project, a book festival and an art magazine in Glasgow. That is the aftermath of the Government’s decision to cut 10 per cent of Creative Scotland’s funding, especially when Scotland’s average culture spend is one of the lowest in Europe.

Creative Scotland’s chief executive, Iain Munro, has warned the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that parts of the creative sector will collapse if funding is not increased. I agreed with Clare Adamson when she said in November last year that the Scottish Government needs

“to restore the confidence of Scotland’s culture sector”,

but I am afraid that the strategy does not do that. It appears to be no more than a rehash of the independence white paper on culture that was published in February. The similarities are quite something. As with any white paper that is published by the Government, it glosses over any responsibility that is held by the Scottish National Party and deflects directly on to others. The Scottish Government needs to be honest with itself. Has it assessed the economic damage that would be done to our culture sector should Scotland ever leave the United Kingdom?

The Cass review, which was published last week, raises serious concerns about gender-affirming care for children in Scotland.

Not only does the report conclude that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of puberty-suppressing hormones, but it details how children and young people might not be being offered the right psychological support and assessment when they experience gender distress. That should worry us all. It certainly worries me, as a parent who would never wish any harm to come to any child, especially to children who need support when they are going through difficult times.

The truth is that we do not know what harms are caused by gender care, because we need more research, here in Scotland. I have repeatedly warned the Government about the Sandyford clinic. I have asked for a review, similar to the Cass review, of gender-related services for children and young people, and I have warned about the lack of evidence regarding puberty blockers. Those calls have been ignored time and again. I do not raise these issues to cause problems; I do so because I want to ensure that children receive the right safeguards when they embark on a course of medication that could have life-altering consequences.

We now have a report that suggests that we should approach gender care with caution, but the Scottish Government is burying its head in the sand and refusing to give any indication of whether it will accept any of the report’s 32 recommendations or will, at the very least, pause the use of puberty blockers until we have more evidence that they are safe. The Scottish Government must implement those 32 recommendations now—or explain why it will not do so, if that is the case.

It is not as if this Government or Parliament has been starved of opportunities for scrutiny. I have requested ministerial statements, written to the First Minister, submitted a question for First Minister’s question time, submitted a topical question and have submitted today an urgent question—all about the Cass review. All were either not taken, refused or ignored by this Government. What more must an elected member do to try to get answers?

Our Parliament’s principles are openness, accountability, the sharing of power and equality of opportunity, yet we have a Government that is in hiding and is unwilling to address a serious issue in the chamber.

I stand here today for countless parents, carers and young people and for those who have been failed by gender-affirming care in Scotland who want, and deserve, answers. That is all that they want. They want confirmation of what this Government will do, now that the Cass report has been published in full. The Scottish National Party Government has had two years since publication of the interim report to think about that, but I believe that it has done nothing, in hope that the issue will go away and that no one will dare to challenge it.

Scottish Conservatives seek to amend today’s business motion. If the SNP Government stands for the principles of this Parliament, it should allow a ministerial statement on the Cass review. Otherwise, it will confirm my suspicion that it is trying to dodge any scrutiny and is therefore letting down vulnerable children and young people right across Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-12864.1, to insert after “followed by Ministerial Statement: Climate Change Committee Scotland Report: Next Steps”:

“followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Government Response to the Cass Review

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.30 pm Decision Time”.