Chamber and committees

Following on from that point, the cabinet secretary has outlined his 48p and lower pay rise this year for care staff. In the evidence that we have heard in this committee around the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, there has been a lot of criticism about the process and about this being focused on structural change. He has already referenced the financial memorandum and the commentary of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Does he not acknowledge that this is the opportunity to pause on the bill, to take account of all of that criticism and to look at how we deal with the immediate pressures in this financial year, and then to make a plan going forward that brings all of the partners who have significant criticisms around the table?

In that vein of being constructive and helpful, I do not think that what I have said is a surprise to the cabinet secretary, given that, in our robust discussions in the chamber and elsewhere, I have called for a pause for some time. If he is willing to have that consideration, that is welcome, and I hope that he will respond to COSLA, trade unions, front-line staff and others who are calling for that dialogue prior to the legislation going through its stages.

Is the cabinet secretary confident that, when we come back round this table to discuss these issues six months to a year down the line, significant progress will have been made, particularly in those three boards? Does he expect them to have returned to a position of having those usual financial controls?

In relation to the additional beds that have been announced, unpaid carers have raised concerns about the potential for loved ones to be “parked”—their word—in care homes, perhaps against their wishes, as they wait for care assessments. There are serious concerns for people’s wellbeing. How will the cabinet secretary increase capacity to ensure that people are appropriately assessed and not abandoned in a setting that may be inappropriate and unwelcomed, particularly with reports this week that social workers in Scotland missed more than 30,000 work days due to mental ill health? Does he accept that it all comes back to retaining and recruiting more social care staff by valuing them and ensuring that they are offered more than this Government’s insulting rise of 40p?

They do not want to hear it, but I have a democratic mandate and as much right as anyone else in the chamber to stand here and make these points.

Let me be clear, in my final seconds, that changing our UK and changing Scotland within it is the change that this party chooses. It is a change that we will deliver at a UK general election.

I associate myself with the comments in the urgent question of my regional MSP colleague Neil Bibby. The impact of the Amazon closure on the local economy in Inverclyde cannot be overestimated, and it is a huge concern to local people.

As we have already heard, the issue raises broader concerns about how public money is used and, indeed, about Amazon failing in its moral obligations to provide safe, stable and well-remunerated employment to the people of Inverclyde.

I accept what the minister said about leaving no stone unturned in trying to protect a future for the site, but it is clear that Amazon is suggesting that people will be redeployed. That does not seem to be likely, so what discussions has the minister had with West College Scotland, Skills Development Scotland and others about retraining and reskilling people in Inverclyde to have well-paid and secure jobs?

We return to Parliament with our NHS in a humanitarian crisis. The deputy chair of the BMA Scotland has described hospitals across Scotland as “not safe” for patients. There are 4,977 patients waiting more than eight hours in our A and E departments. That is the worst figure on record. There are 2,506 patients waiting more than 12 hours in A and E departments. That is also the worst figure on record.

As we have heard from many members, it is a new year, but we begin with an old and tired argument. Instead of beginning 2023 with a relentless focus on the crisis facing health and social care in this country, the first debate in the Parliament is to discuss the constitution.

That is all to distract from the reality of an NHS in Scotland that has been pushed to the brink. The situation has been 15 years in the making with this Government, and a Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care who has failed to show leadership and intervene to avert the current crisis and who has lost all credibility. Front-line health and care workers, patients and the public have no confidence in Humza Yousaf’s ability to deal with the crisis that is engulfing our NHS, but that is not the debate that we are having. What does that say to our constituents who are waiting for hospital treatment, struggling to see their GP or lying on a hospital trolley in A and E?

I have found the debate unedifying because our NHS is on its knees and I do not know what our hard-working health and social care staff will think as they watch the debate. Throughout it, SNP and Green members have been keen to assert what Scotland needs and wants. They have spoken of their mandates, but I could paper the walls of Bute house and St Andrews house with all the Government’s broken promises. What of the mandate on which it was elected on ferries, free bikes, school meals, a nationalised energy company, student debt and the council tax? The list goes on and on—only one thing matters to the Government when it comes to delivery.

Let us think about the reality of what the people of Scotland want. Polling this week revealed that more than two thirds of Scots think that the Scottish Government could and should do more with its existing powers to address the cost of living crisis. The reality is that the priority issues for Scots are the cost of living crisis, jobs and our NHS. Indeed, 61 per cent of Scots believe that the Scottish Government is failing on the NHS. Today has given us another example of an inadequate response to that crisis by the Government.

When asked to list what the Scottish Government should prioritise, Scottish people have been clear. The top three issues are the NHS, the rising cost of living and exorbitant energy bills. Only 8 per cent of Scots said that independence should be a priority for the Government.

It is no surprise to anyone in the chamber that the Scottish National Party—or, indeed, the Scottish Green Party, which seems to have forsaken all else in its policy agenda—wants independence. However, it is telling that the Government continues to pursue that agenda with an evangelical zeal despite the vast majority of Scots, including a majority of people who would consider supporting independence, stating that that is the wrong priority at the wrong time.

It is clear that people in Scotland want to see change. Across Scotland, communities are being let down by both of their Governments. They are being let down by an arrogant and reckless Tory Government in Westminster and an incompetent SNP-Green coalition, which is more interested in pursuing this debate today than in talking about the failings in our NHS and doing something about them—two parties that are locked in a co-dependent relationship of grudge and grievance. Scotland deserves so much better than that—so much better than the divisive debate on the constitutional settlement that we see consistently played out. My colleague Michael Marra articulated that most powerfully in what was an excellent speech.

People want a better form of politics than we have seen here today in the chamber. People want a politics that serves the national interest, brings people together and seeks to solve our collective challenges together. It is only the Labour Party that has the energy, ambition, and ideas to radically reshape our democratic settlement and empower communities in Scotland and across the UK. [Interruption.] The howls of derision from SNP members show that they are afraid of a Labour Government being elected at the UK level.

In practice, a UK Labour Government will abolish the antiquated House of Lords and replace it with an elected assembly of the nations and—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear this!

—so I will conclude on this point. Trans people are not sick. They are not ill and they are not confused. They are people who deserve to have their identity recorded in law, enabling them to live their life fully. I support that end today.

Given the growing body of evidence, does the minister agree that the situation is a public health emergency and that we need to take a public health approach, as has been advocated in greater Manchester by Labour mayor Andy Burnham under the Marmot review? Will the minister take a look at that along with Maree Todd?

I thank Liam Kerr for his intervention. I will let Jackie Baillie and others speak for themselves. I have outlined the changes that I have seen made to the bill, which I do not think are insignificant, as he described them. I am disappointed by that characterisation. Colleagues will speak for themselves and it is up to them to explain their views.

Returning to the point about Gillian Martin and Jamie Greene’s amendment, I reiterate, for the avoidance of doubt, that Scottish Labour is of the view that there is absolutely no link at all between sexual predators and the trans community. It is important to put that, once again, on the record.

The bill has also been changed to extend the time period for applications from 16 and 17-year-olds and to introduce requirements for young applicants to seek support. I understand and respect that there are people who do not believe that those changes go far enough, and people who fundamentally disagree and believe that legislation should not proceed at all. That is why it is crucial that monitoring and reporting amendments that were secured by Jackie Baillie and others, along with commitments by the cabinet secretary to issue guidance, are extremely important.

However, I believe that, in essence, the bill is about improving the lives of trans people by reforming an outdated system of obtaining a new GRC—a system that is degrading and not fit for purpose. I believe that the bill will deliver on the principal objective of delivering a simplified demedicalised process for trans people to legally change their gender.

As a gay man, I know what it feels like to be different, to not understand why and to be frightened that you will never be understood or accepted. I know what it feels like to be told that you are going through a phase or that there is something fundamentally wrong with you. I know what it feels like to be mocked and bullied because of who you are.

I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith—a faith in which I remain—in a village in the west of Scotland. My teenage years were not easy, as I had to continually come out as gay. I know that colleagues have heard me speak about that before in the chamber. Being shaped by that experience leads me to know most acutely that our identity is precious. It is fundamental to who we are. There is nothing that hurts more than someone consistently querying who you are or demonising you for who you are. I know that the bill will have a positive impact on the lives of trans people the length and breadth of Scotland.

I am conscious of the time—