Chamber and committees

I cannot comment on live legal cases; I would be open to criticism if I were to do so.

Regardless of any individual’s view on the legislation, one thing that cannot be said with any credibility or basis in fact is that it is being rushed through the Parliament. From consultation through to introduction of draft legislation and formal parliamentary scrutiny, the process has been under way for a period of six years now. It has not been rushed; it has been done carefully—and rightly so.

Before I come on to the issue of the UN special rapporteur, let me respond to the question about registered sex offenders. It is already the case that such offenders must, by law, notify the police of any change of name. That requirement applies to an individual irrespective of the name that they use or the gender that they identify as. Disclosure Scotland already takes steps to ensure that a person who requests a disclosure certificate does not succeed in avoiding the disclosure of any previous convictions by using a different name. It is important to recognise the protections that are already in place, which the bill does nothing to change. I accept that many of the issues that are being talked about—and many of those that are sparking concern—are not changed or impacted in any way by the detail of the legislation.

I come back to the UN special rapporteur. It is because we respect that person and the role that they hold that we are treating their concerns so seriously. Again, I encourage every member to read the cabinet secretary’s response on the Parliament’s website. She will meet the UN special rapporteur next week. However, other voices in the debate also speak from a lot of experience and expertise. It is not right to dismiss them either, because they are people who work every day of the week with women who are subject to male violence.

Lastly, given that we are speaking about a UN special rapporteur, I note that the reforms in the bill align with the stated position of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that trans people should be recognised legally through “a simple administrative process” that does not require medical diagnosis.

Scotland is not the first country in the world to make changes of this nature; many others have done so. As the cabinet secretary’s response to the UN special rapporteur sets out, the concerns that are being raised in the context of our legislation have not materialised in the experience of other countries that are ahead of us.

Let us continue to treat these issues seriously, respectfully and calmly and allow the Parliament to continue to do its job properly.

Before I respond on the very serious issues that have been raised, I want to say, first of all, that Anas Sarwar is wrong to describe the Tayside service as having “collapsed”. That neither comes close to accurately describing the current service nor does anything to help current patients or the dedicated doctors who work in the centre.

I want to illustrate a really important point, in particular for people in Tayside who might be watching this right now. About 150 new patients are referred to Tayside breast services every week, and of them about seven will receive treatment at another centre. It is therefore just wrong—I think shamefully wrong—to use the word “collapsed” to describe a service in which doctors are working in a dedicated fashion and which is treating many patients every single week.

As for the issues that have been raised with regard to the review, they are serious and require assessment by experts and clinicians. I am not a clinician—politicians are not clinicians—and we do not have the expertise to reach judgments on such matters ourselves. I will look carefully at what is being reported today, as will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and if a further process of review is necessary, we will not shy away from taking that action.

A Royal College of Physicians review, commissioned by NHS Tayside, into prescribing practices up to early 2020 has been undertaken, and the board will implement all of its recommendations. The review looked at a random selection of case notes from before and after the Healthcare Improvement Scotland review and confirmed, as the HIS review had already found, variation in practice against national norms. However, it also pointed to a range of improvements in practice since then. The authors of the RCP review included four oncologists and, of course, its findings aligned with previous published reviews, including that of Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We will continue to take the issues seriously, but also responsibly.

Anas Sarwar asked me to watch the documentary. I will certainly take the time to do so—although I say to him that the health secretary has not only watched it, but took part in it.

These are issues that we all take seriously; indeed, the cabinet secretary will meet the current clinical teams next week. I take this opportunity to assure patients in Tayside that they have a very committed and compassionate team of doctors who deliver excellent care. Recruitment efforts are on-going; in fact, there has been recent success in recruiting a consultant in colorectal cancer in NHS Tayside. NHS Tayside also works closely with oncology teams in the other four cancer centres across Scotland to ensure that patients who need treatment are prioritised appropriately.

At this point, let me repeat what I said in my original answer. Yes, there are challenges in the Tayside service and yes, there have been reviews that have been necessary. If further reviews are needed, we will not shy away from doing them, and there is further work to be done. However, I repeat that, of the 150 new patients who are referred to Tayside breast services every week, just seven have to go to another centre to receive treatment. It is absolutely right to raise these issues, but it does a disservice to the people who work in the centre to describe it as being in a state of collapse, because that is not the case.

First, restricting the ability of international students to come to study in Scotland will have an adverse impact on our education institutions and on our society, which is more diverse and vibrant because of that contribution. It will have an adverse impact on our economy as well. I quote the director of Universities Scotland, who said in recent days:

“Any attempts to cut international student numbers at Scottish universities would be damaging to universities and the Scottish economy. Every year more than 65,000 students from more than 180 countries study in Scotland. This diversity brings significant advantages to both our students and the wider university community as well as generating a £1.94 billion net contribution to the Scottish economy.”

That is why we need to do everything that we can to make it possible for people to come to live, work and study in Scotland. Brexit is making that more difficult, as it is making many things more difficult, and we need to find a way back into the heart of the European Union.

To answer Gillian Martin’s last question, given that the Tories, Labour and the Liberals seem to support the UK being outside the EU, the only way for Scotland to get back in is by becoming an independent member of the EU.

First, I will say that these are difficult times for everyone, including those who work across the different parts of our public sector, such as teachers. It is also a difficult time for public spending because of the inflationary impact on the Scottish Government’s budget. It is in that context that I say that a fair pay offer has been made to teachers, as appropriate, through the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers. Of course, industrial action is in no one’s interests: it is not in the interests of teachers, and it is certainly not in the interests of pupils, parents or carers, who have already faced significant disruption over the past three years.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is in regular dialogue with all our teacher unions and spoke with the general secretary of the EIS most recently on Friday. Those discussions are on-going, although the chamber will be aware that only the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as the employer, can make a formal pay offer to the teacher unions through the SNCT. The Scottish Government does not negotiate separately with unions on teachers’ pay.

Our record shows our commitment to teachers. I really hope that that offer will be accepted, in the interests of teachers and pupils across the country.

That is a statement of fact—[Interruption.] It is a statement of fact. It is important to remember that the current pay negotiations are for this financial year, when the Scottish Government’s budget has been eroded by inflation to the tune of £1.7 billion, and not an additional penny extra has been provided to help to deal with that.

We are not standing by and doing nothing. We are working really hard to give our public sector workers a fair pay deal. In Scotland, the offer that the NHS unions are considering provides an average increase of 7.5 per cent; in England under the Conservatives and in Wales under Labour, the offer to the NHS is 4.5 per cent on average.

We are doing everything that we can to get every penny possible into the pockets of public sector workers, because that is the kind of Government that we are and that represents our values. However, we have a fixed budget, which is being eroded through Tory Government incompetence.

As we reflected earlier today, Doddie Weir was a Scottish sporting legend. As a human being, he was in so many ways one of a kind. He was a hero of rugby but, off the pitch, his response to his MND diagnosis was truly inspirational. He campaigned tirelessly to increase awareness of this cruel condition, as well as raising money for research through his foundation in the hope that a cure will be found, so that others who come after him will benefit.

I suspect that I speak not just for the Government but for everybody across the chamber when I say that we share Doddie’s vision of a world without MND. It is important to say that much of the work that we did after 2015 was inspired by the campaigning of the late Gordon Aikman, who also deserves great credit. [Applause.]

We have invested around £700,000 in research to look at the progression of the condition and the development of a pipeline for new treatments. We have also doubled the number of MND specialist nurses across the country and ensured that they are now funded from and by the NHS. We are currently implementing the neurological care and support framework, to ensure that everyone with a neurological condition such as MND can access the co-ordinated and high-quality care that they need.

I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Doddie Weir. He was a hero on the rugby pitch but, perhaps even more so, he was an inspiration off the rugby pitch. A question later in this First Minister’s question time session will allow me to pay more fulsome tribute to Doddie, but, for now, let me say that my thoughts and condolences are with his wife, his children and all of his loved ones.

On the issue raised by Douglas Ross, not only do we acknowledge the comments made—it is not a UN report; those are comments made by a UN special rapporteur—the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government has written a substantial response to them. I believe that that response can be found on the Scottish Parliament website, because it was sent to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which is the lead committee on the bill.

A number of organisations that represent women who suffer male violence and abuse, including Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid, have responded, too. They have set out in a number of respects why they disagree with those comments.

I take the safety of women and girls very seriously—perhaps more seriously than any other issue—as I am sure we all do. I have spent much of my adult life and all of my years in public office seeking, along with others, to advance the rights of women and girls and to ensure better protection for them against male violence.

Of course, any man who wants to abuse a woman—certainly in my experience, which I think will be shared by many across the chamber—does not need to in some way pretend to be a woman in order to do so. Any man who felt that need would not need a gender recognition certificate. Our focus as a Parliament, and as a society, should be on those who perpetrate violence against women and girls, which is men. It is not all men, of course, but it is men who abuse women. That should be our focus.

In taking on these issues and debating them fully and respectfully, which is really important, we should not further stigmatise a very small minority who are already perhaps the most marginalised and stigmatised group in society: trans people. In any group in society, where there are bad-faith actors, we deal with them; we do not stigmatise the entire group. I believe that very strongly.

It is the case that alcohol advertising and promotion can encourage young people to drink alcohol and can, indeed, act as a barrier for people in recovery. Restricting alcohol advertising and promotion is one of the World Health Organization’s top three “best buys” to prevent and reduce alcohol-related harms.

We have launched a public consultation, setting out potential restrictions on a variety of methods of alcohol advertising, including on sports sponsorship. That consultation closes on 9 March next year, and I encourage anyone with an interest to respond.

The Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport will meet key stakeholders, including sporting bodies, during the consultation period to hear about potential impacts and to gather their views on the proposals.