Chamber and committees

It is often very difficult to follow Jackson Carlaw in any debate, and particularly in this debate, but I will try.

As a child and in my early teens, I was an altar boy; I know that this will be difficult for some colleagues to imagine, but I was told that I was quite angelic. I especially liked to serve on the altar at a wedding, not just because I often got a tenner in an envelope from the best man at the end, but because I loved watching, up close, the joy on a couple’s face when they made their vows and exchanged their rings, and were declared to be married—when two people publicly committed their love to one another for life, in front of their family and friends and God. How could I not be moved? It is a moving occasion, and I think that, even as a child, I realised how moving such an occasion was.

As I got older, however, I started to think about whether that was something that would ever happen for me, and to me. In coming out, you ask yourself many fundamental questions: “Is this normal?”; “Will things get better?”; “Will I love and be loved?”; and “Will I be happy?” In some of those moments, the world becomes quite a dark place, and in the 1980s and 1990s, and indeed in the early noughties, the world was quite a dark place for gay people. The idea of two men or two women getting married seemed unthinkable.

As I said in my first speech in the chamber, however, people lit the darkness through their campaigning and their advocacy, and through taking brave decisions in this place and in our United Kingdom Parliament. It was a Scottish Labour Government that repealed section 2A of the relevant legislation—also called section 28—and a United Kingdom Labour Government that introduced civil partnerships and adoption rights. Those were all hopeful moments on the journey to equal marriage. All were hard fought for and hard won, and were sometimes opposed or frustrated, even by those who subsequently sat in the chamber and supported equal marriage in a later period. The path to progress is never smooth.

Nonetheless, in 2014, Parliament did what that young boy in Neilston thought was impossible, and legislated for equal marriage. In doing so, it gave me part of the answer to the questions that I had asked myself while watching those newlyweds walk out of the church, hand in hand, to begin their life together.

Those questions were perhaps more fully answered for me when I met Alan, I fell in love and I asked him to marry me. When we stood there on 14 August 2021, I was able to reflect on how far we had come and the fact that we stood on the shoulders of all those people who made it possible, but also to reflect on all those who lived in secret and experienced the pain of passing without ever having their love recognised in law and with their families and friends. We raised a glass to all those people at what was—I must say—quite a party.

As we have heard, 10 years on from that moment in the chamber, there are thousands of people who have married, as I have; thousands of committed relationships with thousands of happy moments and thousands of times of holding each other in times of sadness—and the odd fight, I dare say. Thousands of our fellow citizens have had their love and commitment recognised as equal before the law, and that is simple, yet incredible.

We know that there are still opponents and that, in some ways, we are going backwards. We know that some people still think that faith and being LGBT+ are incompatible, and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. People often ask if that makes me angry, and more often than not, I say that it does not make me angry—it makes me sad. It makes me sad that someone could look at 10 years of equal marriage and be unable to see the immense joy that those rights have brought for people who love one another and to our families and our friends.

We are not going back, because this Parliament has built a sure foundation, and there will always be people to stand here and fight for it.

That sentiment is perhaps better summarised by the great Seamus Heaney, whose words featured at our wedding:

Masons, when they start upon a building,
Are careful to test out the scaffolding;

Make sure that planks won’t slip at busy points,
Secure all ladders, tighten bolted joints.

And yet all this comes down when the job’s done
Showing off walls of sure and solid stone.

So if, my dear, there sometimes seem to be
Old bridges breaking between you and me

Never fear. We may let the scaffolds fall
Confident that we have built our wall.

18:04  

A substantial amount of the statement is not actually about the Martins report, perhaps because nobody has had a chance to see it, but about revisions to the ministerial code. I note that the First Minister, despite being the gatekeeper and final arbiter of the code, is not making the statement—rather, he has delegated it to a minister who did not delete WhatsApp messages during the pandemic.

The position of gatekeeper and final arbiter of the code has been a problem in the past, so I note the changes that have been announced so that independent advisers can launch investigations into alleged breaches without referral from the First Minister. However, can the Deputy First Minister confirm that a complainer can go directly to an independent adviser and what the mechanisms for that would be?

As convener of the cross-party group on changing places toilets, I welcome another opportunity to discuss this important issue in the chamber. Indeed, it is our second debate this year. I thank my colleague Jeremy Balfour for securing the debate and for his on-going efforts, alongside those of colleagues across the Parliament, to hold the Government to account on the issue, in particular on its failure to advance the promises that it made on support for changing places toilets.

It was good to hear Jeremy Balfour speak about his pride in the achievement made in the previous parliamentary session through changes to planning legislation. I put on record my thanks to Mary Fee, my predecessor, who was involved in those efforts, and to Angela Dulley, the campaigner who is the secretary of the cross-party group, for her efforts in that regard, too. Indeed, I thank everyone in the cross-party group, who all campaign on the issue and call for better support for changing places toilets across Scotland.

I have already referenced the debate that we had on the issue at the start of January, when we discussed the delays to the establishment and opening of the fund. In that debate, and in the CPG meeting that took place the next day, the minister said that the Scottish Government would make the £10 million changing places toilet fund available across the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26. However, we know that that promise did not play out. Instead of that fund opening in 2024-25, the autumn budget revision took it away. At the time, the minister said that that was a necessary decision for financial reasons during the SNP’s emergency budget revisions. However, she also said that preparatory work on the fund was continuing.

Although I am pleased that, since that autumn budget revision, the minister has told the CPG that the draft version of the fund criteria is almost complete, I am concerned that information that has been obtained under freedom of information requests shows that, prior to the budget revisions, the minister had been in only one meeting on the fund and that her officials had been at only one other.

Put together, all of that does not give us a lot of confidence that the issue is a priority for the minister. I would be keen to hear much more in her summing up about what has been done not only to secure the money in the forthcoming budget but to ensure that the fund can open quickly, with well-established criteria.

It will be shameful if the commitment is not fulfilled. It would be a shame not only for all the people who rely on changing places toilets but for the wider community of Scotland. Scotland is an attractive place that people want to visit, and we want to attract people regardless of their needs and the support that they require. As well as the basic fundamental human rights that we have heard about, we see the economic benefit that changing places toilets can make to our communities.

Every time that the cross-party group meets, we hear about the need for changing places toilets and the gaps that exist in Scotland. As Jeremy Balfour and others have done, I commend the work of PAMIS and others who support efforts to ensure that we have a clear picture of where changing places toilets are and where there is a need for further ones.

My next point has already been made: there is a record of failure for disabled people in Scotland on the issue that we are discussing. I am seriously concerned about some of the decisions that have been taken. In the year since we previously debated the issue, disabled people’s organisations have withdrawn support for the disability equality plan; the promises to provide health checks for individuals who have a learning disability have been completely unfulfilled, despite £4 million being spent on that; and the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill and the proposed human rights bill have been shelved for at least this session of Parliament. Furthermore, the publication timetable for the strategy on young disabled people’s transitions to adulthood has been extended once again. Therefore, I do not think that it is accurate for SNP members to say that there are not serious issues with support for disabled people. It is clear that that is becoming something of a pattern.

The minister might think that I am being harsh on her and on the Government, but, if she was sat where I am, I think that she would be just as vocal about a Government that has repeatedly broken promises that it made years ago.

I will listen openly, as I always do, to the minister’s winding-up remarks, and I hope that, within them, there is a cast-iron guarantee that the fund will open next year. It is not just me who is listening; it is all the members of the cross-party group and all the campaigners and disabled people across Scotland who need these facilities.

The Fraser of Allander Institute has stated that it was “near-impossible” for it to calculate the funding position ahead of the 2025-26 budget due to

“the lack of a medium-term financial strategy”.

I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said by way of excuse for that medium-term financial strategy not coming to the chamber, but the failure to produce it in 2024 was deeply disappointing. It is important that we do not get excuses for failure to produce it next year—indeed, the Auditor General has called for the strategy to be published at the earliest opportunity. Does the cabinet secretary accept the comments of the Fraser of Allander Institute that failure to publish the strategy has hindered transparency of the public finances, and can she be any more specific on the date in 2025 on which she will publish it?

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to publish the next medium-term financial strategy. (S6O-04103)

Good morning. We heard in the minister’s opening remarks about the generic challenges in the implementation of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020. The committee is keen, I think, to understand what has caused the particular delay in relation to parenting disputes and whether there are different challenges, apart from the broad general challenges that the minister mentioned at the outset. It would be helpful if those could be elaborated on for the committee, if the minister is able to do so.

Perhaps that is something to which we will return in post-budget scrutiny.

A number of stakeholders raised concerns that, particularly on the contact centre issue, implementation has been driven by finance and resourcing. What is the minister’s response to that? Given that he said in his opening remarks that he intends to bring in SSIs in 2025, is he content that the resourcing is appropriate?

I welcome the Scottish Government’s on-going positive engagement with the British-Irish Council, which is a very important body for promoting peace and stability across these islands. As a dual citizen, I take it extremely seriously, and I hope that all members take its work seriously, too.

I welcome the commitment made at the weekend by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to work constructively with the Scottish Government as part of the wider reset of relations between the Governments. The cabinet secretary and I have previously discussed the new UK Government’s child poverty task force, which is examining a range of issues including universal credit and the two-child limit. I know that Scottish Government ministers and officials were at the task force meeting in Glasgow on 21 November with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Government discussed its policy proposal on the two-child limit at that meeting?

I will take an intervention on that point.