Chamber and committees

I wonder whether I can return to the point about pay for the social care workforce. We have heard a variety of evidence in the committee, and in recent days we have heard that pay could really make the difference in terms of retaining people in the system. We know the challenges that exist, particularly when social care workers can earn more in Lidl, for example. Has the cabinet secretary done any cost benefit analysis or any other analysis of what the difference would be to the NHS in terms of attendance at A and E and delayed discharge if we were to move to a position of £12 an hour and then look to raise that to £15 an hour over the course of the parliamentary session?

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!

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?

—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—

Just let me make some progress.

The bill has been changed by colleagues on this side of the chamber placing the Equality Act 2010 on the face of the bill and adding to the Government’s statutory obligations to carry out robust data collection and reviews of the bill’s implementation, so that its impact can be assessed and understood. As we have heard, amendments from Gillian Martin, supported by Jamie Greene, have allowed a pause to an individual’s GRC application if they are subject to a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual offences order.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate as we reach the concluding stage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Before I start my substantive contribution, I join colleagues in putting on the record my thanks to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to the other Deputy Presiding Officer, the Presiding Officer and all the staff of the Parliament, who have worked tirelessly throughout the drafting, scrutinising and amendment of the legislation. Without their commitment and endeavour through long hours, we members of the Parliament would not have been able to debate and vote on this piece of legislation today. Their contribution is greatly appreciated by me, and we have already heard from colleagues across the chamber in that regard.

I begin by commenting on the tone and tenor of our stage 3 debate thus far, as we have sought to scrutinise and consider the final stage of the legislation. In my stage 1 contribution, I made comment on the wider debate in Scotland over many years, which has all too often been too toxic and too angry, with a lack of space to find respectful disagreement. For the most part, our debate in this place has been conducted in a vein of respect and, often, respectful disagreement, both in the chamber and in private, and I am grateful to many colleagues for that.

However, I was dismayed at points in our debate last night to hear contributions from members which I found to fall short of the basic standards of respect that we would all expect, particularly the respect that should be afforded to some of the most marginalised people in our society. Indeed, I fully appreciate that watching some of those contributions will have been hard for many trans people, who have seen their lives discussed and pored over in a way that has often seemed technical and detached from the very human reality of this debate. As a gay man, I have also found some of that—and, indeed, the rhetoric over the wider debate—reminiscent of things that I have had to listen to all my life and find deeply offensive.

I also found some of the discussions last night around faith difficult, particularly as a person of faith. We need to recognise that no one person has a monopoly on faith or belief due to one particular strand of opinion. As I said at stage 1, this is about respecting the humanity and dignity of everyone. As I said in the summation of my amendments on Tuesday night, there have been contributions from colleagues where we may fundamentally disagree, but they have been sincerely held views, respectfully offered, and I want to meet those colleagues with that respect. I hope that we will all reflect on all of that as we move forward.

Since the beginning of the debate, I have supported reforming the process to obtain a gender recognition certificate by demedicalising and simplifying it in line with the commitments made in the manifesto that I stood on for election to this Parliament. I have, however, with my colleagues on the Labour benches, sought to scrutinise the proposed legislation and to change it to make improvements that can command the confidence of trans people and the wider public.