Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and to colleagues, as I will have to leave before the conclusion of the debate.

I welcome Christina McKelvie back to Parliament. I thank Karen Adam for bringing the debate to the chamber and pay tribute to her as an ally—along with many other colleagues who are participating in the debate—of LGBT+ people.

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate to celebrate LGBT+ history month, and I am pleased to use the word “celebrate”, because this month should be a celebration. All too often lately, it has felt as though the rights of many LGBT+ people, and the hard-won progress that has been made over many years, have been up for debate.

According to Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service data on charges reported, the number of crimes that were aggravated by sexual orientation prejudice in Scotland rose by 32 per cent between 2018-19 and 2020-21, while the number of hate crimes aggravated by transgender identity prejudice has doubled since 2015.

The Council of Europe has recently pointed to the United Kingdom as being one of several countries where the advances of recent years are “under threat” amid

“extensive and often virulent attacks on the rights of LGBT+ people”,

and, tragically, too many LGBT+ people take their own life or contemplate doing so.

I have spoken in the chamber before about my young self and the fears that I felt when I was growing up, but I have also reflected on the amazing progress that has been made and the confidence that has been given to me by people across the country—in this place, in particular—who stood up and spoke out.

I am immensely proud of the record of my party in relation to decriminalisation; equalising the age of consent; lifting the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people in the military; repealing section 2A, which is commonly known as section 28; the Gender Recognition Act 2004; civil partnerships, which paved the way for equal marriage; adoption rights; and the Equality Act 2010.

To any young LGBT+ people who are watching this debate, I want to say this: you are not alone. You might be worried just now. The world around you might seem terrifying. All that you might see and read might sometimes seem like a never-ending onslaught of anti-LGBT+ rhetoric, but it gets better. It will get better. There are people in this place who are standing up and speaking out for you, and who are ready to defend all the progress that we have made and to move forward once again on the journey for equality.

To quote my esteemed colleague in the House of Commons, Dame Angela Eagle MP:

“We are not going to get back in the closet, or hide, or be ashamed of the way we are.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 June 2019; Vol 662, c 616.]

We will help to write the next pages of our history, and the young people of today will pick up that torch and carry it on.

There is always more to do. There is more to do in continuing to make progress on inclusive education; banning the horrendous practice of so-called conversion therapy; reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and improving access to healthcare and services for trans people.

As we have heard, the theme of LGBT history month 2022 is “blurring borders: a world in motion”. We are invited to reflect on the situation beyond our own borders. Given the challenges and perils in our world at the moment, it is so important that we do so.

Our debate yesterday on the Nationality and Borders Bill made me think of the LGBT+ refugees around the world who are fleeing persecution, violence and death in their home countries. The unfolding situation in Ukraine and the fears for the progress and rights of LGBT+ people and their safety should be at the forefront of the minds of all of us.

The history of LGBT+ people is a global story. It is a story of solidarity, of understanding and of love. I am inspired by so many Scots who have led the way and by amazing organisations, such as Stonewall Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland, Time for Inclusive Education and the Equality Network. I am also inspired by global figures, such as Harvey Milk. I have a quote of his on my desk upstairs:

“Hope will never be silent.”

Members should know that hope will never be silent for as long as I stand in this place and for as long as I have my voice.

My follow-up question is about next steps. Some of the respondents have asked for a clear road map for how we are going to get to the legislation and for implementation. Annie Gunner Logan has talked about addressing some of those points. Are people keen for the short-term solutions that we have just talked about to be set out clearly, as well as the longer-term piece of work?

We now have the analysis of the responses to the consultation on the national care service. There is obviously a clear degree of support for moving to a national care service, but much of the information in the analysis poses more questions. It is quite interesting that 33 per cent of respondents said that they were dissatisfied with the consultation process. I am keen to get a sense of your and your members’ experience of that process, but also of the next steps that you would like to see as we go into the longer-term work on the national care service.

In anticipation of this announcement and in response to it, many people who have disabilities or who are immunosuppressed, and their carers, have expressed worries about what the new framework could mean for them and their loved ones. They have also expressed frustration about their lack of dialogue with the Government.

What engagement have the First Minister and the Government had with people who have a disability, carers and the organisations that represent such people, in the preparation of the framework? Will the First Minister commit to further engagement in the coming weeks?

I associate myself with Gillian Mackay’s comments and those of the First Minister as we celebrate LGBT history month.

Access to sport for LGBT+ people has been historically challenging, and it remains so today because of barriers caused by stigma and discrimination. If we have made progress on sporting role models globally, we still have a long way to go, with many professional footballers in this country speaking of the barriers that remain to players coming out. Does the First Minister agree that the work of organisations such as Leadership, Equality and Active Participation in Sports Scotland—LEAP Sports—and campaigns such as Stonewall’s rainbow laces are vital in supporting LGBT+ people to participate in and enjoy watching sport? What more will the Government do to support that important work?

I will not be the only member in the chamber who has had constituents getting in touch about having their care packages cut or about delays in packages being put in place in the first place.

We know that the impact of those delays and cuts can be devastating. Does the minister accept that addressing the workforce shortages in social care is critical to fulfilling Frank’s law and that one way in which those shortages could be addressed is by giving social care staff an immediate pay rise to £12 an hour, going up to £15 an hour?

Since March 2020, many have made sacrifices in exchange for the protection of our national health service and our fellow citizens. Taking action such as self-isolating and following the rules has undoubtedly saved lives. However, as well as being a public health crisis, Covid has contributed to an unprecedented economic crisis that is making people choose between heating their home and putting food on the table.

As the immediate threats to public health begin to abate, we must not forget about people on the lowest incomes who, as is too often the case, are suffering the greatest impact. As I heard time and again in the early days of the pandemic, we may all be in the same storm, but we are not always in the same boat. That is why the Scottish Labour Party broadly supports the bill, but we must ensure that it addresses wider issues of inequality and the hardships that are faced by low-paid workers, our creative sector, women, unpaid carers and disabled people.

People in low-income households are already struggling to make ends meet so, without sufficient Government support, having to choose between continuing to work or self-isolating without any income may cause them to forgo public health advice. The bill is vital in order to combat that in its widest sense. As we heard from Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment calls on the Government to increase the self-isolation support grant to ensure that it at least matches the national living wage, which will rise to £9.50 in April. Matching the national living wage will ensure that support for those who are required to self-isolate is directed to those who need it the most. In doing that, we can ensure that those who are living on the margins do not have to choose between making ends meet and protecting other people.

I am sure that colleagues across the chamber will agree that the national living wage is the bare minimum that Scots should receive. I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that there is equal access to the grant, so that we can protect as many people as possible. As colleagues have noted, there is a disparity across local authorities in access to that vital support. The rates of approval for self-isolation support grants are as low as 32 per cent and 35 per cent in Moray and North Lanarkshire respectively, whereas in Dumfries and Galloway and Dundee they are above 70 per cent.

It is concerning that the extent of available support is guided by something of a postcode lottery, which demonstrates the need for clear and standardised guidance for local authorities, which are tasked with delivering those grants.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will look into that further and perhaps say something about it in his closing speech, because it is vital that money is getting into people’s pockets, no matter where in Scotland they live.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will work towards finding resolutions to the issues that people are experiencing in relation to self-isolation support grant applications—issues that have been raised by me and by other colleagues in the chamber. As long as we continue to call on the Scottish public to do their part in containing the spread of the virus, we, in this Parliament, must also do our part in safeguarding them from falling through the gap and into more financial distress.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer, which began to explore some of the other themes that I am keen to get more clarity on. You said, quite rightly, that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Is the Government’s intention, then, to target measures specifically to the groups that we have just discussed? Are there examples of initiatives through which that targeting is happening?

I have a technical question about Barnett consequentials—in particular, the Barnett consequentials from the UK council tax rebate and their most effective use in relation to the cost of living. What is the Government’s view on how they will be used? Are there plans in place?

Good morning. I will follow on from the previous question about the Promise. Last week, Louise Hunter, the chief executive of Who Cares? Scotland, referred to “implementation purgatory” in relation to progress on the Promise. Given what the minister has said about the time that it will take to develop a national care service, and what the sector perceives as a delay in implementing the Promise, are those comments a fair assessment?