Chamber and committees

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?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

I would like to make some progress.

SNP back benchers accused us of making political attacks, but what we have heard from them is desperate stuff. They accuse us of making political attacks, but all that we have had from them is howls of “red Tory” as Carol Mochan made her speech, nonsense comparisons with Wales and England, and attacks on Keir Starmer, so scared are they of a UK Labour Government. We will not take lectures from a party that has spent this debate indulging in whataboutery and refusing to acknowledge its responsibility for every single person who has to lie on a trolley in A and E this winter.

The cabinet secretary said that he prepares for winter in advance, so can he tell us why Dr John Thomson, the vice-chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, has stated that the measures that are outlined in the cabinet secretary’s winter resilience plan will

“not be in place in time to prevent further harm to patients and staff this winter”?

Yes, the experts are clear.

Gillian Martin called for solutions that are backed by the experts. That is absolutely right. I went outside and met members of the RCN when they protested in front of the Parliament. They told me that they need more training places to be filled and a fair pay settlement across all bands. They also told me that they need proper breaks and proper rest when they are on shift, because they are not getting those at the moment and the workforce is on its knees.

Perhaps we should subscribe to Emma Harper’s attitude and not listen to the hard-working staff and their trade unions. I am quite sure that they will make diddly quack of whatever her contribution was supposed to be about.

Let us be honest. The issue across our NHS is being exacerbated by the Scottish Government’s refusal to engage on pay, whether of nurses or of social care workers, and its refusal to back Scottish Labour’s pledge to pay social care workers £15 an hour—a wage that they could live on, not just survive on.

The Scottish Government has also failed on social care more widely. It has failed to implement key recommendations of the Feeley report, and there are serious concerns about its approach to the national care service, which have been outlined by trade unions, the third sector and professional bodies. As Alex Rowley and others said, it is clear that the Scottish Government is not listening to what is being said about the serious challenges in social care. All of that begs the question, if the Government is not going to listen to the advice of independent experts in the field, who is it going to listen to?

It is fair to say that Humza Yousaf is a record breaker. Week after week, we learn about record-breaking accident and emergency waiting times. Every time that Scottish Labour is forced to bring debates such as today’s to the chamber, we find that another record has been broken by the cabinet secretary. It is quite clear that, in place of meaningful action to address the crises in A and E, in social care and across our NHS, all that the cabinet secretary has to offer is hollow words. It is increasingly obvious that Humza Yousaf is the man with no plan.

I am sure that most of the members in the chamber could have pre-empted the cabinet secretary’s response before he got to his feet. If you do not like one of his excuses, he has others. First, it was Covid. Then it was Brexit, the cost of living, winter weather and staffing. It is the same old script, which does a disservice to healthcare staff, patients and the families of patients, who have real concerns about the current crisis in our NHS.

It is not good enough. We need a health secretary who can offer leadership, not one who hides behind tired old scripted excuses. The First Minister is fond of saying that the buck stops with the Government, although she rarely does anything other than look at the buck and watch it float by. So, in the cabinet secretary’s own words to hard-working nurses, let us not patronise one another. The buck stops with him, and, if he is not willing to get on and fix the situation in the NHS, he should resign.

Our NHS is facing a humanitarian crisis this winter, and—let us be frank—the responsibility lies at the door of this Government and this cabinet secretary.

Today, we have again heard about the scale of the crisis in our NHS. We have heard from Jackie Baillie about the personal cost behind each and every one of the numbers, each of which represents a person with a family and their own story who is cared for by our amazing NHS staff, who are at breaking point.

The debate has been characterised by the cabinet secretary’s thin skin. He complained about being personally attacked, but the reality is that all that Jackie Baillie and Labour members did was point out his failures in comparison with his predecessors in the job of health secretary, including Jeane Freeman, who led the country through the beginning of the pandemic. Alex Cole-Hamilton took a similar approach when he pointed out what Paul Gray has said about the head of steam that has built up, the perfect storm that has been created and the fact that it is not all about Covid.

I wonder whether Sir Harry wants to come in, particularly in relation to testing change. Obviously, he has experience of testing change and seeing what works.

Pardon that expression.

I want to ask about social work. I imagine that it is challenging to make a comparison, because the scope of the bill goes beyond the practical delivery of social care. Northern Ireland is perhaps a good example to look at, because social work there is delivered slightly differently via more of a health board model. Have you found any international examples of elements of social work, as a profession, being put into a national social care structure?

Do those arrangements involve criminal justice, children and young people’s services or learning disability services, for example, as well as just older people’s services?

We have begun to touch on the issue of what the bill will actually achieve. I would like to reflect on some of the commentary that there has been since the bill’s publication. The Centre for Care said that there must be greater clarity on how the reforms will achieve the intended goals. It asked how we will test the bill against the theory of change and how we will establish whether it has done what we want it to do. There has been commentary on whether the bill will fully deliver the recommendations of the Feeley review, and there has been commentary from trade unions on whether it will do anything to tackle the issues around pay and terms and conditions. Unison has gone as far as to say that the bill should be paused.

In that context, I am keen to get a sense of how the bill can achieve the aims that have been set out. Perhaps we could start with Nick Kempe.