Chamber and committees

Yes—that is absolutely my understanding. It is why I have just outlined the wording of the 1835 act, which is included in that form, along with the current process. We would seek to replicate the new process on that form along with the wording of the 1835 act.

Through my amendments in that regard, I am trying to be helpful; they are sensible and demonstrate what people would recognise as a common-sense approach. I am disappointed that the Government cannot accept them.

My other amendments follow in the same vein. Through them, I aim to ensure that there is a belt-and-braces approach with regard to those who witness statutory declarations, that the evidence that is provided as proof of identity is lodged with the registrar general and that there is a record that the process has been followed properly. I think that everyone wants to have confidence that it has been followed properly, which is true whether you are a trans person applying for a GRC or a member of the wider public.

I acknowledge Graham Simpson’s amendments and note that he is keen to claim credit for inspiring me to lodge mine. I note, however, that there are some differences between his amendments and those that I have produced. Mine deal with the process of witnessing statutory declarations. There are differences in how I have set out my list of evidence, because I have tried to demedicalise the process, in line with the intent on this side of the chamber, and to ensure that no higher barriers are placed in front of trans people regarding issues such as gender markers.

I have already said that we support the cabinet secretary’s approach to proof of identity and want to take that further.

My colleague Michael Marra and I have spoken at length about the nature of the bill and of his amendments. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not agree with the content of all his amendments, especially that of his countersignature amendment, but I respect his sincerely held views as he brings that amendment to the chamber. I acknowledge that.

The amendments have been offered, as I said in my opening remarks, in a spirit of trying to ensure that the bill is as robust as possible and that it commands the confidence of anyone who has to engage with the process—particularly trans people, but also the wider public. That is the spirit in which I offer my amendments, and I hope that they will command support.

Not moved.

Amendment 104 moved—[Sue Webber].

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My digital voting platform says that there has been a problem and an error. I would have voted yes.

I am delighted to speak in this important debate and to support my party’s amendment.

I will focus on some experiences not just from my own working life but from asset transfers that have taken place in communities across the West Scotland region. There is a real sense in this debate that the general principles of the legislation are good and well intentioned in their devolution of power to local communities and in empowering local citizens to take ownership of community assets of strategic or historic importance. Indeed, many of the assets that colleagues have mentioned are often the anchors of communities, particularly in town and village centres. The legislation was necessary to equalise the process to some extent and to give more options to urban communities to take control of assets. Indeed, we have already heard how important some of that has been.

We in Labour are proud of establishing the right to own community land and assets in the very first years of the Parliament, and there are really positive examples of communities that have led the way in using the legislation. One such example that is well known to me and the minister can be found in the community of Neilston, where I am from: Neilston Development Trust led the way by using the community right to buy legislation to purchase the old bank, which is now a community hub in the village. In fact, the hub has become a real asset, providing a community cafe and a space where lots of different groups can meet; indeed, the Neilston & Uplawmoor First Responders service operates out of that base.

That shows what can be done when one asset leaves a place and is replaced by something that can fill the gap that has been created.

I agree with colleagues that the system perhaps needs to be simplified and made more accessible. When I worked in the voluntary sector, in the precursor to the third sector interfaces that were mentioned by Paul McLennan, we took part in the earliest consultations on the legislation, and I remember having conversations with colleagues and community groups in East Dunbartonshire about the need to build capacity in community groups to enable them to be upskilled so as to be ready to take on community assets, because that is not always an easy thing to do. Community groups and organisations in which the board and the committee are simply trying to keep the lights on and the doors open and provide all the services that they provide find it quite challenging to be asked also to become legal experts who are knowledgeable about things like deeds and trusts and the funding that is available for these sorts of things. Capacity has always had to be built, and that has always been at the heart of what we are doing in this area. However, because of other decisions that have been taken on spending, there has not always been the necessary level of support for that capacity.

That is broadly true on the council side, too. Having been a councillor for 10 years, I have seen that, often, the departments that are set up to deal with the transfers have been depleted and do not have the necessary level of staffing to support communities that want an asset to be transferred.

Alongside the issue of physical buildings, I want to highlight the important issue of community spaces that can be supported and cared for through asset transfer. There are a number of excellent youth football clubs in my region that are keen to have asset transfers of old playing fields in their community, so that they can use them not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of the wider community. I know that they have had challenges in engaging with councils across the region in their attempts to secure those asset transfers. Port Glasgow Juniors, Bishopton Football Club, Neilston Football Club and St Cadoc’s Youth Club have all come to my door asking for help and support. Again, it comes down to having the necessary capacity built in.

I am conscious of time, so, to conclude, I say that I know that Màiri McAllan has committed to ensuring that community groups going through the community asset transfer system have a dedicated caseworker. That is important and is something that must be followed up. We have to offer a helping hand to people who want to improve their communities, and not put hurdles in their way. I hope that the minister who is here today will listen to some of the feedback and will be able to reflect in his closing speech on what we can do to make the process easier and more accessible.

It may be panto season, but I am not sure that the audience bought that answer.

One in seven Scots are currently languishing on waiting lists. It was reported earlier this year that half the Government’s NTCs would be delayed. This is therefore not only an issue in Highland. Does the cabinet secretary accept that jam tomorrow is not good enough, and will he tell us whether he expects any further slippage in the current timetable elsewhere in the country?

I congratulate my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing the debate in recognition and celebration of Unison’s year of disabled workers campaign. Throughout 2022, Unison has campaigned to highlight the experience of disabled members and the value that they bring to their workplaces and call for better enforcement of their legal rights, particularly the right to reasonable adjustments in the workplace.

That campaign is one of many examples in which trade unions are standing up at the moment—as they have done throughout their history—to advocate for good working conditions in the form of accessible, comfortable and safe workplaces for all workers including, most importantly for the debate, disabled workers. It fundamentally shows the value and importance of our trade unions and the trade union movement that they stand for all workers and, even more so, for workers who face significant barriers to making their contribution in the workplace and our society—shattering glass ceilings and glass staircases, as Pam Duncan-Glancy is fond of saying.

We have already heard that the pandemic has fast tracked the need to prioritise accessibility and adaptability in the workplace and brought many of those issues into sharp focus. Sadly, it is still the reality that disabled people face a unique set of challenges in accessing not only employment but education and training that can lead to further employment. The lack of access that disabled people experience means that they can be less likely to have a degree or equivalent qualification and are more likely to be unemployed or in part-time employment due to the barriers that they might face when seeking employment.

In my working life before coming to the Parliament—or, as I sometimes refer to it, my previous life—I worked for Enable Scotland and saw at first hand the extraordinary work that organisations can do to support disabled people into meaningful work. We all have to reflect on the work that is being done in concert with trade unions and organisations such as Enable Scotland to deliver on real and meaningful job support. The reality is that it takes finance, funding and the will of organisations to be able to make the changes that are required, support someone on every step of the journey and ensure that the jobs that they are given are meaningful and suitable for them as a person, not just any job or a job that was considered to be suitable for them by someone who does not have that lived experience.

It is beyond time that we made a clear commitment that work should be truly accessible for all. We have to support and empower employers to make their working practices inclusive for all, irrespective of the barriers that individual employees may face.

We also have to consider going further in order to speed up the process of making workplaces accessible and supportive spaces for disabled workers. We all know that the stark reality is that it is harder for a disabled person to get a job in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the UK. Figures reported by the Office for National Statistics in 2022 noted that Scotland had the widest disability pay gap of any UK nation, which rose to 18.5 per cent earlier this year. We would all agree that that figure is unacceptable, and I am confident that members from all parties across the chamber will want to commit to redoubling efforts to reduce those figures.

That is also why I am pleased that we can make other interventions. I highlight at this stage my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy’s Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions to Adulthood) (Scotland) Bill. It is a very important bill that could play a crucial role in tackling the disparity experienced in employment between able-bodied and disabled workers. We have to ensure that future generations do not fall into a system with cracks that prevent them from transitioning out of the school system and into education, training or work. I hope that colleagues will look at that bill in great detail when it comes to Parliament.

I encourage the minister, after listening to today’s contributions, to commit to reassessing what specific actions the Scottish Government can take to eradicate the discrimination and inequality experienced by disabled people when they are in the labour market and looking for work and when they are in the workplace. We can and must do better. I put on record once again my thanks to Unison and all our trade unions for the work that they do to support disabled workers day in, day out.

I am pleased to be closing this extremely important debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. What we have heard most clearly throughout the debate is that health inequalities exist, are pernicious and continue to widen. That has to be a matter of shame for us all, and we have to recognise the scale of the challenge that lies before us.

Of course, this is not the first time that we have debated health inequalities and it will not be the last, because it is an enduring problem. The challenge that lies before us is that things are not improving. Instead, the evidence that the committee saw suggests that things are getting worse. We must all, across the chamber, resolve to do much more to tackle the issues.

From our inquiry, the committee is clear that health inequalities are a symptom of wider challenges. We have heard that echoed across the chamber by many colleagues, along with acknowledgment that we have to get to the root causes. The inequalities are the result of wider socioeconomic inequality and systemic racism and discrimination—in particular, discrimination against women and LGBT+ people. They are also a result of how our public services are sometimes organised in a way that focuses on what is convenient for administration, rather than on providing the support that is most effective for the people in our communities. It is fair to say that, very often, they are also a result of siloed working and a lack of joined-up action across services at local and national levels.

I was just coming on to make the point that, along with the causes that I have just outlined, we cannot get away from the fact that problems are often rooted in political choices that are made in whatever sphere of government, including here. We have to acknowledge the many deep reasons behind all the issues that we have discussed today.

The hard choices that are needed to tackle the issues are everyone’s responsibility. Saying that they are everyone’s responsibility can often lead to issues becoming no one’s responsibility, so it is incumbent on all spheres of government to find a way to work together to change things. If we do not address the underlying causes, we will be treating symptoms, not tackling root problems. I add my voice in support of the very powerful evidence that the committee heard from Professor Michael Marmot, about how we can empower local government in particular to deal with many of the root causes on the ground.

I echo what the convener said: that our report calls for urgent action across all spheres of government—local government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government—and prioritisation of actions that are aimed at tackling the underlying causes of health inequality.

The challenge is enormous, as we have heard being reflected all across the chamber today, but it is one that we must aspire to address collectively. We have heard many important contributions today from committee colleagues and colleagues representing areas that are affected by health inequalities. We heard particularly powerful contributions from Alex Cole-Hamilton, about what is happening locally in Muirhouse; from Rhoda Grant, about neighbourhoods that sit side by side in Inverness; and from Fiona Hyslop, about the actions that are being undertaken in West Lothian as we start to tackle some of the issues at community and neighbourhood levels. We would do well to listen to those experiences and to see how we can continue to push forward the policy agenda.

Colleagues have mentioned Covid and the current cost of living crisis. We cannot escape those challenges; they continue to affect everything that we do. The cost of living crisis became acute during our work on our report.

As we seek to rebuild and renew following the pandemic, and to navigate our way through the rising cost of living and its effects, there are opportunities for us to reframe our thinking and to tackle some of those really difficult issues. If we are to meet the challenges effectively, we need to think in radical and innovative ways; I am hopeful that the committee’s report sets that out and helps colleagues to begin to think about all those things.

I want to highlight, in particular, the contributions that other committee conveners made to the debate. Martin Whitfield reflected on the fact that it has been good to have so many committees contributing to the debate and to the wider work of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

From Clare Adamson, who spoke on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, we heard about the wider societal benefits of culture in tackling health inequalities and about the importance of mainstreaming preventative spend. I thank her for highlighting the four pillars of the Christie commission report, which are still highly relevant today, 12 years on from the report. We must ask ourselves some serious questions about how far we have come on Christie’s vision and how far we still have to go to achieve it.

In speaking on behalf of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, Siobhian Brown laid out shocking statistics on the excess deaths that were recorded in the most deprived areas during the pandemic. I recognise that as someone who, in part, represents Inverclyde, which had very high levels of death during the pandemic. She spoke about the on-going work on vaccination and the determination to make tackling health inequalities a priority to be addressed as part of Scotland’s wider recovery. I think that that chimes with many of the recommendations in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report.

Natalie Don, on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, set out that committee’s recent work on low income and debt, its scrutiny of policies to tackle child poverty, housing issues and homelessness, and its work on social security policy, all of which bear on health inequalities. We agree that there must be a joined-up preventative approach that enables people to thrive rather than just to survive.

When Audrey Nicoll spoke on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee, she highlighted the link between crime, victimisation and inequality, and she mentioned the growing number of people who are having to turn to crime to survive. It was stark to hear about that. We must acknowledge that that is a current and persistent problem.

I could mention a number of other colleagues, although I am conscious of the time. I thought that what Brian Whittle said in his speech on behalf of the cross-party group on health inequalities was very helpful, as was what Gillian Mackay said about the work of the cross-party group on stroke. I know from what the cabinet secretary has said in the chamber and in response to the committee that there will be more discussions and debates about how we will move forward.

I again thank everyone who contributed to the report. I thank the clerks and everyone involved with the committee for their work. It is my hope—which I know is shared by many members—that by addressing the challenges that have been identified we can start to tackle health inequalities and, in doing so, improve the lives of people in Scotland.

My question is this: if, for example, Mr and Mrs Smith decide to make a representation to an elected member, where does that responsibility sit most effectively and appropriately? I take your point, but I wonder about that more local focus.

Convener, if I may, I would like to move on to the points that Age Scotland made in its submission about aspects of the Feeley report that the bill does not cover. Adam, you alluded to the financial memorandum not correlating with what is in the bill. Are you concerned that things are being missed because they are not in the bill? I am referring to things such as free personal nursing care rates, the removal of non-residential care charging and the terms and conditions of social care staff. Should they have been in the bill in the first place?

My next question, which is for Elinor Jayne, is on a broadly similar theme. Obviously, the scope of what is proposed has extended beyond what was in the Feeley report, and we have heard suggestions that elements of social work could go into the national care service. How would SHAAP feel about that, given the strong links between social work and support for those with problematic alcohol and drug use?