Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the committee for all its diligent work on the bill.

I will restrict my remarks to amendment 88. It has only seven words, so I will try to keep things short and sweet, as it has been a long session for everyone.

What the amendment proposes is quite simple; it seeks to strengthen the Scottish apprenticeship framework by giving ministers the option, through regulation, to make further provisions on

“consultation with trade and industry representatives.”

Through work that we have done together in the past on construction, the minister knows that I take a keen interest in apprenticeships, and the amendment arises from discussion with industry bodies, including representatives from the Scottish Joint Industry Board for the electrical industry—or SJIB; I thought that I would read it all out just to get it on the record—because that includes representation of employers through SELECT and union representatives through Unite the Union. The SJIB would be the ideal body to represent those undertaking electrical installation apprenticeships to ensure that they and their interests are protected.

I know that the Government does not want a long list of bodies and stakeholders in the bill but, given the unique contribution that industry and trade bodies make in representing the professional interests and working closely with trade unions and apprentices, this amendment would certainly strengthen the bill and, I hope, not create too much of a headache.

I am keen to hear from the minister, but he knows that I am happy to have a meeting with him and officials if he cannot support the amendment today. As I have said, it has seven words. It seeks to strengthen the bill in a really simple way, and I hope that the minister can see the merits of that.

What you have said is fair, minister. Putting too much into the bill—that is, a shopping list of stakeholders—is a risk, but not referencing key groups is a risk, too, which is the point that you have perhaps accepted today.

I welcome the opportunity to meet you and other colleagues. I hope that the minister understands why some of the bodies that I have mentioned today are nervous; they feel that, although the bill gives control to the Government, it does not offer the opportunity to regulate, and that could be detrimental in the future. Getting the wording right is important, but if I am not to move amendment 88 today, I need a commitment that there will be time for dialogue on that.

I join colleagues in thanking Patrick Harvie for securing the debate. I also put on record my thanks to Paul McLennan for his recent motion marking trans awareness week and trans day of remembrance. I know that both motions mean a lot to trans and non-binary Scots, their families and their friends.

The fact that we are having this debate tonight reminds people that they are not alone. I should not be shocked, but when I consider the data in this area and listen to colleagues discuss the waiting times, I find the situation truly shocking. If the issue that we were debating involved people waiting 80 years for cancer treatment or an appointment for diabetes, heart disease or any other medical issue, it would be on the front page of every paper. There would be an emergency piece of legislation and something would be done. We are here collectively to appeal to the Scottish Government to do something. In my view, the actions that people and organisations, including the Equality Network, are calling for are within the gift of the Scottish Government. We need to look to every health board in Scotland and ask them to step up. There needs to be some accountability.

From the statistics in front of me, I can see that around one in five referrals to the Sandyford clinic involves a person from Lanarkshire—my community. What is NHS Lanarkshire doing? I know that the Scottish Government made additional funding available, but that did not lead to any new services and it did not change the outlook. I share colleagues’ fear that, when people are told that the best estimate of the wait for their first appointment is 80 years—an entire lifetime—they will lose hope and there will be an impact on their mental health.

It is important that we remember the human stories behind the statistics. I will not name constituents or people who have been in touch with me, in order to respect their privacy and dignity. However, when we hear people say that they feel that they are being tortured, that they cannot cope with the menstruation that they experience every month, that there is no support and that they have to access the internet and the dark web to get hormones and medication without medical supervision, that is not okay. We need to think about the safety of people right across Scotland.

We also need to support the workforce, who are often at the sharp end of the situation, which has an impact on their mental health as well. I would be interested to hear from the minister tonight what work is being done on workforce planning.

I will reinforce some points that have been made in the debate. It is clear to me that we need an urgent plan from the Government to address and reduce waiting times. We need investment in distributed service models, so that care is not concentrated only at the Sandyford clinic—as Mercedes Villalba said, people need to access healthcare in their own communities. We must address staffing shortages and training gaps.

On the current strategy, there have been multiple health secretaries and many different health ministers, and we cannot keep passing the issue on to the next person. I hope that the minister will hear tonight that, across the Parliament, there are MSPs who are willing to help her with that work and who will raise the issue with her and colleagues to ensure that it is a priority. We need to leave the chamber tonight knowing that the Government has a plan and that people will be able to find some reasons to be hopeful.

That is debatable. [Laughter.]

That is an important suggestion. Is it your assessment that more work needs to be done to make sure that the information is more accessible and understandable to the public? Do you think that the public dashboard that you talk about should have not only a national focus but local and regional data, so that, wherever people are in the country, they get a sense of how things are going in their own community?

We are getting down to basics here, but that is a helpful answer. I think that everyone agrees that we need clarity and policy certainty.

I will try to be brief with my next question. There has been a delay in emissions reporting, and we have moved to five-year carbon budgets as opposed to annual targets. Will the witnesses say a few words about the importance of early warning indicators, which have been mentioned a few times, and the kind of data that we should capture for the benefit of not just the Scottish Government but other stakeholders that are part of this journey? How do we get more immediate feedback on progress and risks?

Professor Roy, you have talked about some of the risks to fiscal sustainability, so, I will come to you initially.

I would like to explore that issue more before I bring in Clare Wharmby. I assume that the pace of the transition is important, particularly given that there is a declining basin. The number of jobs in the north-east of Scotland has dropped off, what happened in Grangemouth has been well documented, and we now have a live situation in Mossmorran. There is a feeling across Scotland, particularly in those key communities, that there is not really any evidence of a just transition. It might be that, in terms of the connection with place, things will look quite different in the future. However, from a Government perspective, how important is it that there is an acceleration of pace with regard to the fiscal element of the transition?

Clare Wharmby, to add to the original question, does the national approach that is set out in the plan align with local data sources and local approaches?

Now that there has been a fuller discussion, convener, I note that you have indicated that this will probably result in a vote, because there is division on this. I welcome the advice and background papers that have been provided to the committee, and what really stands out for me is that the notification outlines the reasons for lead ammunition being restricted and the fact that it impacts not only on wildlife, but on human health, too. Our papers advise that

“ingesting lead from ammunition is known to cause excess deaths in wildfowl and poison predatory species that eat contaminated prey or carcasses. It also highlights that humans can be exposed through consuming game meat that has been shot with lead ammunition.”

Those seem like quite serious matters that we should take into consideration. I have not heard anything that would persuade me not to support the proposal today, but I thought it important to put that on the record.

I am lost for words now, convener.

This has been very interesting; it is always good to have you here, Dr Dixon. I will come to you first, because I want to turn to the importance of monitoring and evaluating the climate change plan, but I also want to pick up the thread about just transition. What you have been saying to the committee is really important, and I hope that both the UK and Scottish Governments are listening.

This is a very obvious question. How important is monitoring the progress of the climate change plan, and what are your perspectives on the two-track approach to monitoring that is set out in the plan at the moment and the inclusion of just transition indicators for the first time? Obviously, I want to hear from the rest of the witnesses, but I will come first to Dr Dixon. If Neil Langhorn wants to add to that, that would be great.