Chamber and committees

I have a brief question on short-term assistance. Last week, SCOSS talked about its reservations about STA’s interaction with reserved benefits. I know that there is an on-going dialogue with the Scottish Government about that, because of the variance in view in that regard. Could you comment on the issue and on those discussions?

Last week, the committee heard about the 30-page form for attendance allowance. The cabinet secretary referred to the different formats of application for the Scottish benefit. How long will the form be for PADP? To what extent has Social Security Scotland tested it and worked with people to understand their needs in that respect?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S6O-03446)

Earlier this month, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board approved the permanent downgrading and reduction of the out-of-hours general practitioner service in Inverclyde, which is now the only area of the board that does not have a full service. That was despite widespread opposition to the closure in the public consultation and the unanimous opposition of Inverclyde Council. Although local Scottish National Party parliamentarians have tried to excuse the cut, reports to the board have made it clear that there has been a lack of investment in front-line services, including out-of-hours services. The director of finance for the board has said that it will have to review every line of spend in order to meet its savings targets.

Why did the Scottish Government call in the decision in the face of widespread opposition? Will the cabinet secretary be yet another SNP health secretary who comes to Inverclyde and tells people that services are safe with the Government and then presides over cuts, closures and second-tier provision?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association could collapse due to the withdrawal of Scottish Government funding. (S6T-01982)

I think that the cabinet secretary would want to acknowledge that the national organisation is extremely important in supporting delivery on the ground. Without that umbrella organisation, many of the men’s sheds would not be able to do the work that they do. The situation is evidence of a larger challenge in the third sector in relation to sustainable funding, ensuring that processes are not complex and ensuring that there is clarity about where funding is coming from.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that changing decisions mid-year and not giving information on time is a chaotic way to deliver funding, and that it does not allow organisations such as the umbrella organisation for men’s sheds to function properly? What will the Government do more widely to reset its strained relationship with the third sector and finally deliver on long-promised improved funding models?

I am sure that the Parliament will be pleased to hear that reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the Government has looked again at the funding decision. Indeed, I think we heard from the First Minister on Thursday that the decision would be looked at again.

I think that everyone in the chamber can agree that men’s sheds are a linchpin in tackling poor mental wellbeing, isolation and loneliness. They take a preventative approach, with thousands of men voluntarily engaging about their vulnerabilities for the first time.

It is clear that we have been here before: this is not an unusual situation with respect to the funding. The Men’s Sheds Association needs proper stability of funds to ensure that the sheds can continue to have a huge impact on men’s lives. Will the Government go a step further than the answer that was given just now and say what longer-term funding options are being considered by the Government?

Good morning. I will build on the discussion that we have had so far. Committee members are keen to understand the ways in which PADP will differ from attendance allowance, particularly in relation to the experience of going through the application process. We had begun to touch on some of that. Does Mr Stachura want to continue on those experiences? We will then hear from other witnesses.

Thank you. I will turn to SCOSS. One of the differences in provision is in short-term assistance. SCOSS has said that it has concerns about its interaction with other benefits. Marilyn Howard, do those concerns remain, or has interaction with Government changed that position?

I thank Collette Stevenson for securing today’s debate. Taking time to highlight the problems of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence and the challenges faced by members of the LGBT+ community is vitally important. Those issues demand constant attention and focus to ensure that we continue to progress in the right direction, by making it clear that there is no place for domestic abuse in Scotland and by furthering the rights and equality of LGBT+ people.

The motion references the view that structural inequalities could be prohibiting LGBT+ victims of domestic abuse from coming forward or receiving the support that they need. I will start by addressing those structural inequalities, because there is no doubt in my mind that, of late, the rhetoric in relation to LGBT+ people has become more toxic.

We have come a long way since the days of section 28 and the homophobia of years gone by, but there can be no mistaking—we should not kid ourselves that this is not the case—that homophobia and transphobia are still present in our politics, media and society. Some of the headlines in the press over the past few weeks, and some of the reactions and commentary on them, have crossed the line from nuanced, responsible and sensitive questioning of policy to full-throated stereotypical attacks that are met with hurt and, very often, fear by LGBT+ people across Scotland.

It is those feelings of hurt and fear that very often convince people that they will not be heard or taken seriously and that they are still looked on as other. When we talk about domestic abuse and intimate partner violence, both within and outwith the LGBT+ community, but we still cannot talk in a sensible way about inclusive education and support that treat LGBT+ identities as normal and valid, is it any wonder that we are concerned about the underreporting of the problems that people face? We have heard about some of that already, but it is why education is so important.

Education around domestic abuse and what it means to be LGBT+ in Scotland remains completely vital, and it is why I and many others across the chamber continue to support organisations such as the Time for Inclusive Education campaign, so that we can increase understanding and our support of young people.

There are still too many young LGBT+ people in Scotland who are scared to talk about themselves, their identity and their experiences, because they do not see themselves reflected in their education and in society. Tackling the general stigma faced by LGBT+ people and helping to empower them to speak out need to go hand in hand with tackling the general stigma and fear around domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. I recognise that we have made significant progress in the way that we talk about domestic abuse in the context of violence against women and girls. There is much more to do, and I stand with the work of the Government and the excellent work of organisations such as White Ribbon Scotland, particularly in ensuring that men take responsibility for changing our attitudes and behaviours.

We debate this motion at the beginning of the Government of a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I want to take the opportunity to thank Emma Roddick, who is in the chamber, for all her work in her time as Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, particularly in those areas in which I know that she took a keen interest. I wish her well on the back benches, where I know that she will continue to advocate on all those issues.

I say to the Government that we must not roll back now on the hard-fought rights of LGBT+ people; rather, the Government must show commitment and progress while building a consensus across our country, just as we have done at every milestone for LGBT+ people in the past. As I have said previously in the chamber, we are not going back into the closet, we are not going to hide and we are not going to be ashamed of who we are. I support the calls in the motion for a national LGBT+ domestic abuse strategy to raise awareness and improve services so that they are accessible to everyone in that community, and I call on the Government to reflect on that in its response. We must start the journey of tackling this important issue today.