Chamber and committees

I will not be as brief as Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I will try to be as brief as possible.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, which are, in my view, quite straightforward.

The bill proposes that it will be a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or a false application. A person who commits such an offence is liable to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine. However, what would constitute making a false declaration and what prosecutors would have to prove should a person be accused of doing so are not clear.

It might be said, “Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it?” If I were to say that I had been living as a woman for three months and I had not, I would not be telling the truth. Of course, it is not clear at all from the bill what living as a woman or a man means legally. We will come to that in discussing later amendments.

If I took something belonging to you, convener, that would constitute theft, and I could be prosecuted. If I had broken the speed limit to get over to Edinburgh, I could face penalty points. If I tried to pin the blame on someone else for that offence, that would be a lie, and I could be done for that. However, if I said that I had been living as a woman, how would anyone prove that I was lying? Given that we do not know what living as a woman means in the bill, it would be pretty difficult to establish whether I was telling the truth.

The bill creates a serious offence, which is punishable by imprisonment. It is surely incumbent on ministers to set out what would constitute making a false declaration. Amendment 22 would compel them to do that, and it would also compel them to set out what evidence would have to be provided to show that someone had lied. If ministers cannot do any of that, it is difficult to see how an offence could be prosecuted, because we would simply not know what the offence was. If we do not know what constitutes an offence because we do not know how to prove or disprove it, there can be no offence.

I say to those who are in favour of the bill—I think that the majority of the committee are in favour of it—that it needs to be much tighter. If amendment 22 is rejected, there will be legal challenges galore coming along the tracks. If the committee is minded to accept it, amendment 28 would make any regulations that are made as a result subject to the affirmative procedure, which would give an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny.

The meaning of the phrase “living in the acquired gender” is fundamental to the bill. I have searched high and low for an explanation of what has to happen if, for example, a man was to say that they were a woman; surely, the bill does not allow for a man simply to say, “I am a woman”, get a certificate to say so without providing evidence of anything, and then have that legally recognised through a change to their birth certificate—or am I missing something? I do not think so.

The bill says that I would have to live as a woman for three months. However, if we are to bring in a bill that is as fundamental to people’s lives as this one, we need to be clear on what is meant by it. The bill is woolly at best, and that is not good enough. If we are going to allow people to make declarations that they have changed gender, surely the law should say what is meant by that. The bill does not do that; indeed, it does not say anything about it, which is particularly concerning if we are moving towards a model of self-identification. Surely, something has to have changed in order for someone to say, “I was a man but now I am a woman” or vice versa.

Amendment 20 is another attempt by me to tighten up a bill that is full of holes. It does two things. It says that ministers must say in regulations, first, what they mean by the phrase “living in the acquired gender” and, secondly,

“what changes would be considered evidence that a new gender had been acquired.”

It is not for me to say what such changes should be—just that there should be some. Otherwise, we will be left with a situation in which it is easier for predatory men to prey on women by pretending to be women, because of having a certificate without any of the current safeguards that exist in law—a piece of paper that, as the bill is currently drafted, proves precisely nothing.

Amendment 27 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and amendments 29 and 30 are technical and consequential.

I move amendment 20.

I always think that it is useful during stages 2 and 3 of a bill to listen to what is being said by people one might assume one disagrees with. I think that there is probably some common ground between me and the cabinet secretary. She may not realise that, but I think that there is. She can intervene on me at any point.

Amendment 20 simply seeks to get the Government to spell out what we mean by “acquired gender” because I have seen nothing about that until today. The cabinet secretary listed a few things. I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 to see if we can insert something into the bill, based on what she has said, that will help to clarify matters, if she is prepared to do that. I invite her to respond to that.

That is helpful. I can see that you are struggling to agree with me. I will help you: I will engage with you and not press amendment 20. I think that we can find common ground ahead of stage 3. I hope that we can, because that would be helpful to everyone. As experienced members know—certainly those of us who have served on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee—it is very difficult, not just for MSPs but for members of the public, to jump between pieces of legislation, so it is useful to have everything in one place.

I will not press amendment 20, on the basis that I think that we can work on an amendment for stage 3.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 125 moved—[Russell Findlay].

We know that things are bad when a Scottish Government agency speaks of people moving away from the islands because the links are so poor. At least Highlands and Islands Enterprise understands the desperation of islanders—so much so, that it is giving £15,000 to some of them to look into how to run their own ferry services.

HIE says that many island businesses rely on planes to get them on and off the islands. That is largely because the ferries are so unreliable. Therefore, cheaper air fares for businesses would bolster vital air routes. HIE also says that better links for everyone will help to stop depopulation. It points to chronic issues on the west coast ferry fleet and the need to help island councils that run their own services to replace their fleets.

Will the Government do anything more on air fares, and will it help the councils to fund new ferries? When will the Government pull its finger out, tell us how it wants to run ferries in the future and set out a proper ferry replacement plan?

To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the reported comments by Highlands and Islands Enterprise that cheaper air travel for business passengers could help to strengthen the viability of island routes. (S6F-01504)

I, too, thank Emma Roddick for bringing the debate, and for her powerful words—as I thank other members for theirs.

Over the past few years, I have been visiting Our Lady’s high school in Motherwell, talking to its higher politics students about various tricky subjects. A few years ago, I set them a challenge to write a speech for me—which they did, and which I delivered here—about bereavement services. Today, my speech has been written by higher politics student Eleyza Mohammed, who attends Taylor high school but joins the class at Our Lady’s. I thank her for doing that, and for coming along to listen to it. There she is in the gallery—I am embarrassing her.

Anxiety disorders are the most common and pervasive mental disorders. That is why this debate is so important. See Me Scotland’s “See me in work” four-stage programme helps employers to improve cultures, policies and practices in relation to mental health. The programme can save money for employers and improve the working lives of every one of their employees. The national programme to eliminate mental health stigma and discrimination has been awarded £5 million of Scottish Government funding for five years. The continuing investment in See Me, which has been announced alongside the launch of its new strategy “With Fairness in Mind”, will allow it to carry on its important work as part of the wider national response to the mental health impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Wendy Halliday, who is See Me’s director, said:

“Stigma and discrimination can have a devastating impact on the lives of people with mental health problems. It can stop people from getting the right help and support, it can cause people to lose their jobs, it can leave people isolated and, for young people, they can find themselves being judged and dismissed when trying to reach out.

That’s why the launch of our new five-year strategy ... and the continued investment in the See Me Programme from the Scottish Government is so important. There must be this ongoing commitment to ending the deep rooted stigma that exists in Scottish society, especially in workplaces, education, health and social care and communities.”

She is right. See Me wants a change in the way that support and treatment for mental health is thought about. It believes that

“Tackling stigma and discrimination and addressing the barriers they create must be central to any action to improve mental health.”

It is right about that, because the figures are stark: 70 per cent of people polled believe that people with mental health conditions experience stigma and discrimination in their lives and workplaces.

People who live in rural and remote areas can feel particularly isolated, and that can contribute to anxiety and depression. According to the results from a 2020 national survey on drug use and health,

“approximately 7.7 million nonmetropolitan adults reported having any mental illness ... accounting for 20.5% of nonmetropolitan adults. In addition, 1.8 million, or 4.8%, of adults in nonmetropolitan areas reported having serious thoughts of suicide”

annually. Those are frightening figures.

Half of people in problem debt have a mental health problem. There are several ways in which the rising cost of living can affect people’s health. Being unable to afford sufficient food leaves people malnourished, and being unable to keep their home warm leaves them at risk of developing diseases and, importantly, can affect their mental health: almost 40 per cent of people with a mental health problem say their financial situation worsens their mental health problems, so it becomes a vicious circle. That demonstrates that more work needs to be done by employers, public health agencies and Government to tackle mental health stigma, and those issues must be addressed in any Government mental health strategy.

I thank Eleyza Mohammed once again. [Applause.]

Good morning, minister. The committee’s report, to which you responded, was on the supply chain. It is clear that logistics are an important aspect of the supply chain. I was not a member of the committee when it did its inquiry, but I have read the report and your response. As has been said, it was a wide-ranging report. Part of it related to the logistics industry and, in particular, lorry drivers. During the pandemic, we could see that there was a shortage of lorry drivers. In fact, that is a long-standing issue that existed before the pandemic.

The committee identified two problems: the fact that we do not have enough lorry drivers; and the facilities that lorry drivers have to put up with, which are sometimes rank rotten. They really should not have to put up with some of the facilities that are out there. I am not necessarily talking about facilities in Scotland—there is a problem throughout the UK. I think that your letter to the committee refers to that. We need to know what is out there and what the offer is for lorry drivers in Scotland. We need to know what facilities there are.

First, have we started that piece of work? We have been talking about it for long enough. It should not be that difficult to find out what rest and welfare facilities there are in Scotland, and it should not be difficult to find out what condition they are in. We just need to get on with it and work with the industry to make improvements where they are needed.

Secondly, we need to know how many lorry drivers we need.

Okay. I will move on to a slightly different area, but will stay on logistics. My question is about electric vehicles. I know that they are not in your brief, but this is about logistics, and we want to decarbonise transport.

The recent report by the cross-party group on sustainable transport highlighted the fact that deliveries increased during the pandemic, with more vans on the road, and that, although more people are switching their private vehicles to electric, we are actually seeing more petrol and diesel vans on the road. As a result, we need a modal shift in delivery vehicles, but the infrastructure to do that needs to be there, and it is not at the moment. What are we doing about that?

It is. I seek clarity on the STPR2 delivery plan, which Andy Park mentioned. The minister’s response to the committee says that that delivery plan will be published “later this year”. Mr Park has just said that there is slippage on that. He used the word “spring”, which can mean quite a bit.

People have been waiting for the plan for some time. The committee’s report refers quite heavily to the road network, which is why Mr Halcro Johnston was asking about it. Why is there slippage, and when exactly will we see the plan?