Chamber and committees

Thanks, convener. I appreciate that we are dipping into different themes, but that is the nature of the discussion.

Following on from Gillian Mackay’s point about trying to achieve fair work principles and improve terms and conditions, I have a question about recruitment. We know that there is a huge challenge in social care recruitment. I think that there is a suggestion that, through the bill and the national care service, action can be taken to look at recruitment on a more national basis, or through a national campaign.

Councillor Kelly, do you sense that we need a national care service to do that, or would you rather see interaction between COSLA and the Government on national work on recruitment? Has anything happened between the Government and COSLA on that? What has the Government done?

I have a brief question for Eddie Fraser, after which I will ask a final question.

At the end of the previous section of questions, Eddie, you outlined the alternative approach of local and national Government working together to try to find national standards and to implement them in a national care service. Do you see any parallels with what happened in 2017 when proposed education legislation sought to make ministers responsible for improvements in education through regional improvement collaboratives? That legislation was taken away, and there was collaboration and co-design with all the partners to create what we now recognise as RICs, which are run regionally but have local accountability and committees. Might we want to learn from that process here?

Good morning, panel. I will begin with some questions on what is felt to be the lack of detail, which is being left to secondary legislation, and the lack of local accountability, on which many of you share comments in your submissions.

Starting with COSLA’s approach and its submission, I think that it is fair to say that it is very concerning to read local government’s view on what the bill will do to the provision of services by local government. At COSLA, unanimous cross-party concerns have been raised about the bill, and leaders have unanimously agreed that position. I was a councillor for 10 years and I do not recall such unanimity at COSLA, particularly through its leaders. Councillor Kelly, will you explain how that position was reached and what the concerns are?

My next question is for Jennifer Paton, who is here on behalf of the Law Society. In your response to our call for views, you say:

“It is not clear what evidence base suggests that a national service will improve quality and consistency of services. This lack of an evidence base also makes us question whether the centralisation of what are currently locally-delivered services can be justified in terms of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.”

The Government hopes to incorporate that policy into law. Can you please expand on the impact that you think the bill will have on local democracy and accountability?

I will expand on the point about the practicalities of the bill. It is a framework bill that has some very clear things to say, and it will have a very clear effect on local government, but the written submissions say that there is also concern about what is not said about secondary legislation. In its submission, Inverclyde Council says:

“Leaving so much to secondary legislation will mean there will be no effective consultation, no opportunities for expert advice and experience to influence the details and a lack of transparency and democratic accountability.”

To be fair to the Government, I think that it would contend that there will be a co-designed process, but is it your view that that is the wrong way round and that there should have been a co-designed process first, followed by the bill?

My other question is more for Councillor Kelly. This morning, we have heard you, as COSLA’s representative, express concern about a wholesale transfer of services from local government to the national care service. I have heard it described by people as councils essentially becoming providers in a larger framework. Do you think that there is a principle at stake here for local government?

In its written submission, the Law Society of Scotland said that it is concerned about a lack of evidence for a national care service, which raises the

“question whether the centralisation of what”

is currently delivered locally

“can be justified in terms of the European Charter of Local Self-Government”.

I bring that up, because of the shared commitment by the Government and COSLA to incorporate that charter. Do you think that principle is at stake, too?

That would be helpful. Is it fair to say that, as your submission suggests, you question whether the centralisation agenda can be justified?

Thank you.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate at stage 1 of the bill. In rising to speak, I am pleased to follow colleagues who have made contributions that are constructive and respectful in tone, particularly Karen Adam, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jamie Greene. I recognise all too well the truth that Jamie Greene opened his speech with.

I will focus my contribution on the bill that is before us, but, at the outset of my speech, I will comment on the public discourse about and around the bill. Over the past few years, the tone of the debate has reflected poorly on our nation. It has been divisive and toxic. In the vacuum that was created by the legislative process being delayed, interpretation of the bill has led to conversations that have been hurtful, damaging and largely related to what is not in the bill and what the bill does not do. I believe that there has been too much heat and not enough light.

In his important and deeply considered book, “Building a Bridge”, the Jesuit priest Father James Martin considers how we must build bridges of respect, compassion and sensitivity between those who have come to fundamentally different viewpoints. He speaks in the context of a bridge between LGBT people and the Catholic church, hence my interest in his work.

He speaks about fundamental truths that can be transposed and about the use of names to respect the fundamental dignity of every human person. He speaks about the way that we describe a person and about calling them what they ask to be called. He talks about respecting identity and humanity and not applying generic, pejorative terms to whole groups of people, no matter how much we fundamentally disagree.

Let us be honest: the rhetoric has often dangerously veered into transphobia and homophobia, even in public life, such as the corridors of this place and in our council chambers. That is always unacceptable and must be addressed.

I recognise that there are people who have views that are sincerely held and who should not be described in pejorative terms as part of one larger group. We all have a duty to conduct our discussion better, particularly in online spaces. Perhaps I am naive to continue to believe in building that bridge, but it requires respect, compassion and sensitivity.

I turn to the bill. In our 2021 manifesto, the Scottish Labour Party committed to reforming the 2004 act to demedicalise the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. That was a manifesto commitment on which we were elected and a pledge to trans people, who are one of the most marginalised groups in society, as we have heard from colleagues today.

In supporting reform of the 2004 act, I am proud to support not just party policy but the position of LGBT Labour, which has been in existence for more than 40 years and has been affiliated to the Labour Party since 2002.

I am also following in the footsteps of former Labour parliamentarians such as Kezia Dugdale, our former Labour leader, and my predecessor in representing West Scotland, Mary Fee, who proudly championed the rights of trans people in this chamber and continues to advocate reform of the GRA from outside the Parliament.

Of course, I understand and appreciate that some people have raised concerns about aspects of the bill in its current form. That is why it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to take our responsibilities seriously, to properly scrutinise the bill at its further stages and to ensure that it is fit for purpose and protects the rights of all.

Scottish Labour believes that the reforms must demedicalise the process and that the process for applying for a GRC set out in the 2004 act should be replaced with something that is more accessible and dignified, that is administrative in nature and that is not overly complex.

The bill details who can apply for a gender recognition certificate and whom the application will be made to, but it does not specify the form that the application will take. I think that clarity on that is extremely important in order to provide confidence to all. As we have heard from my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy, we will seek to work with the Government in that space.

The Equality Act 2010 has been referenced in a number of contributions today. The act is one of Labour’s proudest achievements in government. It protects both women and trans people from discrimination, along with—as Pam Duncan-Glancy outlined—disabled people, gay people and those with a variety of other protected characteristics. That is why, as the bill proceeds, Scottish Labour will take action to ensure that it is clear in the legislation that, for the avoidance of doubt, the protections in the 2010 act remain in place.

We will scrutinise the bill with intensity as it continues to make its progress through Parliament. It is important that the bill is robust and commands confidence not only in this chamber but outwith the chamber, among the wider public.

We must not lose sight of the purpose of the bill: it is about giving trans people the right to live their lives with dignity and respect. From a broad perspective, I believe that the general principles of the bill, as outlined, will improve the lives of trans people in Scotland by ensuring that they do not have to go through the current process to achieve a gender recognition certificate—a process that is, as we have heard, lengthy, traumatic and undignified.

However, along with colleagues, I respect the need to continue to work hard to scrutinise the bill to try to build that bridge so that everyone can have confidence that we are delivering legislation that will be respected. I hope that that is a shared objective that we can all work together to achieve as the bill progresses.

Will Pam Gosal take an intervention on the point about faith communities?