Chamber and committees

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.

I appreciate what you have just said. I think that everyone would welcome an enhanced financial memorandum. That would be important, not least because of the significant concerns that have been raised by colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Will that enhanced financial memorandum include consideration of the VAT liabilities that are involved in this process?

I want to go back so that I understand the point about ministerial control as opposed to local control. The minister said that people have told him that they want ministerial control and accountability, and I appreciate that in previous answers he has said that he will communicate to the committee where that evidence came from.

Okay, but, as the minister knows, people have raised issues around the consultation and how consulted they felt. I am happy to go through the detail of that; I speak to people who have lived experience as well, and some people have raised concerns.

However, I want to get to the heart of this issue. What interests will local authorities have in the delivery of social care if they are not accountable for it? If local authorities do not hold a statutory responsibility for it, then what is their role?

Good morning. I will return to the point about the potential transfer of staff and the figure of 74,000, which I think that you described as “rumours”, minister. I think that trade unions, local authorities and front-line staff would contend that the concern about the possibility of 74,000 staff being transferred is legitimately held; however, I appreciate that you said that your view is that wholesale transfer is not envisaged, and you gave the example of a care board being the provider of last resort.

My understanding is that, currently, a council would be a provider of last resort anyway—it currently fulfils that function. If we are in the business of trying to clear up and dispel rumours, are there any other reasons why staff might transfer to a care board?

If we take as read what you have just said—if we take you at your word—why have you not spelled out in the bill that your intention is that the care boards will be providers of last resort, or that they might put in place specialist provision, which you referred to? Will you expand on that? I presume that you perhaps mean specialist learning disability services or something like that.

Why have you not spelled out in the bill what you have just said, in order to give confidence to people who are clearly very anxious? In evidence, we heard from trade unions, local authorities and front-line staff that there is anxiety, not least about the potential implications of TUPE for pensions and so on. I appreciate that you have written to the committee in that regard, but if we are dispelling people’s anxiety, do you want to take the opportunity to clear up some of those issues?

What will the status of health and social care partnerships be in the new approach? Do you envisage them no longer existing in their current form and being redeveloped through the national care service process?

What will happen to health and social care partnerships, given the process of integration that has happened in various local authorities?

I begin by asking more broadly about structures. I hear what the minister says about the need for national standards, and there is a large degree of consensus around that. However, whatever way we look at it, the national care service involves big structural change. Does the minister feel that there is a risk of that structural change becoming an end in itself rather than being a means to a greater end?