Chamber and committees

Not for the first time, I cannot help wondering whether Douglas Ross listened to a single word of the statement that I have just delivered to the Parliament. He gets up here and blithely, with an air of complacency, says, “Covid is now under control.” The pandemic—he did not say this, but the implication is that the pandemic is over. Yes, we are in a much stronger position because—

I think that I got the gist of the question. I think that Pauline McNeill asked me about the use of lateral flow devices generally, and in particular in relation to people who are immunosuppressed. Can she nod if I have got that correct? She is nodding.

Yes, I strongly agree with that. As I said in my statement, and have done for several weeks, we recommend regular use of lateral flow tests for everybody, as people go out and about and socialise. It is especially important that people who are at the greatest potential clinical risk take that precaution, so I strongly encourage it.

How long testing might be required is a difficult question to answer, right now. It is one of the things that we will consider on an on-going basis; our up-to-date understanding will be included in our updated strategic framework. My view is that it is one of the protections that we are likely to ask people to follow for longest, because it is such an important way of breaking chains of transmission.

Procurement of tests and whether they should continue to be provided to the public free of charge—as I believe they should—remain, of course, matters of on-going discussion among the four nations of the UK. I have made clear to the UK Government my view that no change to the approach should be made without the agreement of all four Governments across the UK.

Where it makes sense to use external expertise to free up civil servants to focus on policy development and implementation, we will do that. Other Governments do that, too.

Let me give one example of the kind of contracts that Jackie Baillie is talking about: a contract to analyse the consultation responses. It is routine for analysis of consultation responses to be undertaken independently. That work is often put out to an open and fair procurement process, and that independence is normally considered to be a good thing. I can only imagine the howls of “Bias!” that we would hear from Jackie Baillie had we decided to analyse the consultation responses internally instead of having that done independently.

Jackie Baillie talked about changes of heart. I want to come on to that point briefly. She now seems to think that Government should always do such work itself. However, as a minister, she did not have that view. When Communities Scotland was being set up, the Labour social justice minister at the time told the Parliament that external consultants’ costs were part of the tens of thousands of pounds spent to establish it. The minister responsible back then was, in case members have not guessed it by now, one Jackie Baillie.

Let me say two things in addition to what I have already said. First, on the letter from clinicians, I am more than willing to look into why a reply was not sent. However, I believe that the health secretary has said publicly that he will meet Raigmore clinicians, and it is inconceivable that decisions would be reached on this issue without properly engaging the front-line clinicians who are responsible for implementing those decisions. I assure those clinicians and the populations that are affected that that will absolutely happen.

On the more substantive issue, I do not need to remind members that I was health secretary for a number of years, so I have grappled with many of these issues. The starting point is that everybody wants every woman to be able to give birth as close to home as possible. However, there are often safety and sustainability challenges associated with that and we have to consider those issues carefully. For example, in some of the smaller units in our country, sometimes the issue is that the small number of births means that it is not possible to have the specialisms to support the complexity of care that might be required. During these years, there have also been some recruitment challenges in some of these units that have added to these issues.

It would be completely wrong and irresponsible for a Government or clinicians on the front line not to have regard to those very serious issues as we try to strike the right balance between quality specialist care and care that is as close to home as possible. That is a balance that we have to grapple with in many aspects of national health service care, but it is particularly important when we are talking about the safety of pregnant mothers and their babies.

We are talking about really difficult issues. I absolutely understand the views of families and women who give birth, but it is so important that we get the decisions right. I absolutely acknowledge that, in getting those decisions right, the views of front-line clinicians are essential.

We have given commitments to continued investment in Raigmore as we take forward the options and any recommendations.

The health secretary will engage directly with clinicians, as is right and proper, and we will continue to treat all these matters with the utmost seriousness.

I welcome today’s Audit Scotland report. In many respects, it does not tell us anything of which we have not all been aware. There is an urgent need for reform of our social care services; we are taking that forward through the proposals for the national care service. Before I move on from that, it is important that I recognise that the findings of the Audit Scotland report that has been published today are largely in line with those of the independent review of adult social care that Derek Feeley led for us. That is why we are moving to establish a national care service by the end of this session of Parliament.

In the meantime, we are increasing investment in social care. We are increasing the pay of people who work in social care because recruitment and retention, and valuing the social care workforce, are important parts of what we need to do. That work will continue as we take forward the plans for the national care service over the next few years. Everyone across Parliament will have the opportunity to contribute to those plans.

Those who listened to my first answer to Anas Sarwar will not have heard me blaming anybody. They will have heard me talk about the things that this Government is doing, building on the action that the Government has taken in years gone by.

However, I cannot allow this moment to pass without reminding Anas Sarwar that, while we have been in office in national Government for 15 years, for much of that time in Glasgow City Council, for example, Labour was in administration and was denying female workers the equal pay to which they were entitled. It took an SNP administration in that council to deliver equal pay to women workers across Glasgow. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, if I am not prepared to take lectures on that matter from the leader of the Scottish Labour Party.

We will, of course, continue to increase the pay of adult social care workers. We have already taken the step that I have described. Just this month, we have, for example, announced additional investment to help unpaid carers with respite, and we will take forward the plans to deliver the national care service. That is a reform that, I hope, future generations will look back on as having as much significance as the establishment of the national health service has had for this generation.

We will get on with doing the hard work of supporting people who work in adult social care and who do such a sterling job on behalf of us all. I take the opportunity today to thank them for what they do.

I am absolutely delighted that the adult disability payment regulations were passed unanimously this morning. Starting in March and being phased in ahead of national roll-out in August, the payment is the 12th benefit that we will deliver, and is the most complex to date. It is a major milestone for our social security system that will mean that there is a very different approach from the current adversarial Department for Work and Pensions process. It will put an end to the anxiety that is caused by undignified physical and mental assessments and an end to private sector involvement. It will also end the stressful cycle of unnecessary reassessments.

Starting from a position of trust, the adult disability payment will provide disabled people with a compassionate system that is designed around what they have told us is important and which will, crucially, be rooted in our values of dignity, fairness and respect.

We will continue to discuss with North Ayrshire Council and other councils their ambitions across a wide range of areas, including that one. The technology is very early-stage technology. My concerns about nuclear power, which are not just about the waste that is generated from current nuclear technology, but are about real doubts about value for money, are well known.

We will discuss with councils any ambitions that they have, but in the meantime we will continue to invest in renewable energy, in which Scotland has vast potential to support our transition to net zero.

First, I take the opportunity to thank the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for its work on an incredibly challenging and complex investigation. Unfortunately—and I think that we all feel frustration at this, although it is not the fault of the Fire and Rescue Service—due to the extensive damage that was sustained at the site and the destruction in the fire of physical evidence, the Fire and Rescue Service was unable to determine its likely origin and cause.

Nevertheless, it is important—I agree with Pauline McNeill—that, wherever possible, all lessons are learned, because of the importance of the art school and the Mackintosh building to Glasgow, to Scotland and to the arts and culture community. We will continue to consider how the Scottish Government can support that lessons-learned exercise and to support the art school as it takes forward plans for the future.

Of course, all higher education institutions must comply with the terms that are set out by the Scottish Funding Council and with the principles of good governance that are set out in the Scottish code for good higher education governance. We expect the highest standards of propriety from organisations that receive public funding.

I will give further consideration to Pauline McNeill’s suggestions and will come back to her in due course.

I note the letter that was received yesterday from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I also note that it represents a significant change in the position of that organisation. It responded to both the Government’s previous consultations. In its response to the 2017 consultation, it said:

“the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is far removed from reflecting ... best practice ... and has a significant negative impact on the lived experience of trans people.”

In the 2019 consultation on the draft bill, it said:

“The Commission considers that a simplified system for obtaining legal recognition of gender ... would better support trans people to live their lives free from discrimination, and supports the aims of the draft Bill.”

Obviously, it is for the commission to say why its position has changed, but it is important for me to narrate that that is a change in position.

I am slightly concerned about some of what I consider does not accurately characterise the impact of the bill. The bill will seek to simplify an existing process; it will not confer any new rights on trans people, nor will it change any of the existing protections in the Equality Act 2010. It will not change the current position on data collection or the ability of sports organisations to take decisions, for example.

We will continue to engage with a range of organisations, but let me stress again: this is a bill that is designed to simplify an existing process, to reduce the distress, trauma, anxiety and, often, stigmatisation that trans people suffer in our society. The Government will set out its plans for the timetabling of that legislation in due course.