Chamber and committees

I organised a round-table meeting with the faith groups, at which there were people from every faith, and their view was that they had not been consulted. I just wanted to put it on record that more than 60 people from every single religion were there, and they told me that they had not been consulted.

Thank you, convener. I seek clarification on what Pam Gosal asked about. Has the Scottish Government consulted the faith groups? I support what has been described because, much of the time, when a religious person goes into hospital—unless they are in an emergency situation, which anyone can see—they have a choice and they can ask. However, the cabinet secretary did not make it clear in what she said. If faith groups have been consulted, I would like to know who they are.

EHRC guidance supports my amendments. The EHRC thinks that it is not only relevant but important to clarify the issue for the purpose of cross-border certainty. It said in its briefing:

“By broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland.”

Those significant implications mean that it is important for us to make the bill as clear as possible.

Can I say a few words here?

Do you think that it should be more clear? Do you think that removing something to accommodate somebody else is right? Should it not be balanced? Should we not give equal opportunity to everyone and listen to everyone?

Will this not put employers at risk, cabinet secretary? What support will the Scottish Government provide to employers? I think that it opens up a load of arguments for everyone, and it is totally unnecessary. The matter needs to be clarified.

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important issue to the chamber for debate. Her motion mentions the scenic and beautiful area of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale but Brexit poses challenges in Midlothian North, across Lothian and across Scotland. There is much to agree with in the motion that we are discussing but it will not surprise Christine Grahame that I cannot support its conclusion.

Last week, in the debate on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report, my colleague Sarah Boyack said:

“Many of us did not want to be here, ... dealing with the consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; c 67.]

She is right: Brexit and the levels of inflation that we face today lie squarely at the door of the Tories.

The EU referendum was a political choice by David Cameron to try to unite his party. The Brexit deal was first negotiated by Theresa May and was voted against by Boris Johnson, only for him to renegotiate parts of the deal. The former Prime Minister described it as an “oven-ready” deal, only for him and his two Tory successors to seek to unilaterally change that very deal through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

The Tory party is now very keen to point out that there are inflationary pressures everywhere. That is true to an extent, but the UK finds itself in a far worse position than many comparable countries because of two factors: the recent political instability and the fact that the Tory party is held hostage by an internal faction that will accept only the most extreme form of Brexit.

I think that many people across the United Kingdom are tired of government by internal Tory drama. We need a Labour Government in Westminster to provide solid leadership and move the UK forward.

I cannot accept the conclusion of the motion that independence is the answer to those problems. Mark Blyth, who is one of the economists appointed to the First Minister’s own panel of advisers—[Interruption.] I will just go ahead. As Mark Blyth has said, independence would be “Brexit times ten”.

The answer to the disruption caused by separation from our biggest trading partner is not to repeat the process. The answer is a change of direction in Westminster, with a new, constructive attitude to our friends on the continent and a commitment to revitalising our economy. That is the only way that will deliver an economy that works for everyone across the UK. That better future is possible, and I want to see it for Christine Grahame’s constituency just as much as I do for the Lothian region and the rest of Scotland.

How will the third sector be integrated into the long-term delivery of the national care service? I know that the minister has given a lot of examples, but I am not clear on how it will be integrated in that regard.

Good morning, panel. I will be brief and will ask Rachel Cackett a question. What kind of cost might be created for third sector organisations by the provision on monitoring and information sharing?

Given that homelessness services are not included in the functions that can be transferred to the national care service, are they at risk of falling through the cracks?