Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is not one Labour member who does not share the First Minister’s priority of ending child poverty. However, the reality is that, even allowing for what the cabinet secretary has said, in Scotland some children are still going hungry. Key stakeholders, including Aberlour, have argued that we could make further changes to the income threshold per pupil in years where the provision is not free, which would improve even further families’ access to free school meals. Will the Government commit to looking at how much further it could increase the threshold so that more families would be able to access that provision?

I thank Clare Adamson for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank the two speakers before me, both of whose contributions I enjoyed.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome no falls week 2024 and restate our commitment to promoting safe working at height. I also reaffirm our support for and solidarity with all workers who have been injured in employment, their families, and families who have tragically lost loved ones due to workplace incidents. It is so important that we talk about such matters in the Parliament.

I pay tribute to the No Falls Foundation, which organises no falls week and, as other members have said, promotes this critical work, which forms a base from which campaigns can grow and deliver results. As the motion states, across Great Britain, in the year 2022-23, 40 people lost their lives due to falls from height. That statistic is absolutely devastating, as all members across the chamber will agree. Falls from height accounted for almost a third of all workplace deaths, which confirms how important it is that we make progress on preventing them.

The workplace environment is different for everyone; some people work in more precarious and challenging conditions than others. Regardless of the workplace environment, though, the safety of workers is absolutely paramount. It has been wonderful that, in the past few weeks, we have discussed these matters so often across the Parliament. At the very least, every worker should expect that their place of work is safe, that precautions are in place and that safety features are explained in all detailed information there. Where that is not the case, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that employers recognise the importance of employees’ safety and wellbeing, and that the expected standards are not only met but exceeded.

As a member of the Opposition, that leads me to a key point, which is the need not only to raise issues with the Government but, at times, to challenge it. My colleague Mark Griffin recently proposed an excellent new bill, which was brought to the Parliament just last month. It would have created an industrial injuries council of experts and a new employment injury benefit. It would have been a landmark bill that would have set Scotland apart in recognising the impact of workplace injuries, including falls from height, as well as long Covid, dementia among footballers and cancer among firefighters. That proposal underlines how the Parliament can demonstrate its dedication to the wellbeing of workers across Scotland.

At times, the Opposition’s role is to raise—again and again—what the Parliament can do to make a difference. I recognise that everybody is working to ensure that we can make a difference, and I am sure that we can do it by working together. Safety at work is absolutely paramount. I am proud that my party stands with the trade unions and with workers in an effort to reduce incidences of falls and other health and safety matters at work. I hope that Scotland will lead the way on legislating on such issues and that I can play my part in holding the Government to account on them.

I again thank Clare Adamson, who lodged the motion, and the other speakers in the debate.

I thank Emma Harper for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I recognise the knowledge and skills that she has in this area and I praise the on-going work that she is committed to doing in the Parliament and beyond. I have heard her speak about this subject many times, and it is much appreciated.

Scottish Labour welcomes, as my colleague Jackie Baillie does, world asthma day 2024, which is supported by the World Health Organization and took place yesterday. We recognise this year’s theme of “Asthma Education Empowers”.

As far as prevalence is concerned, asthma in Scotland affects, as we have heard, around 368,000, 71,000 of whom are children. An important point that has been raised by Asthma and Lung UK as well as by members relates to the collection and recording of information. Currently we do not have an accurate collection method or an agreed reporting system across health boards and the Scottish Government, and given that, according to the Royal College of Physicians report, two thirds of asthma-related deaths could be preventable, I ask the minister whether the Scottish Government is looking at that issue. Perhaps she will say something about that in her closing remarks.

As other members have said, medical advisers and professionals who work in the field have identified key risk factors in managing the condition, including the overuse of relief inhalers, the underuse of preventer inhalers and recent emergency hospital visits with no follow-up. Such factors give great insight into the reasons for this year’s theme of education empowering people; it makes it clear that it is important to teach people with asthma about their condition and that, by learning about it, they can manage their symptoms better. That helps the patient, the doctors and the NHS.

When I did some research for the debate, it became clear that we need strong will and a strong commitment from the Government to prioritise this lifelong condition. According to recent Asthma and Lung UK research, many Scots with asthma are falling short on the basic care guidelines. We know that there is pressure on NHS staff, so I ask the minister to tell us how she believes that the Government can help to reverse that pressure on staff and offer asthma sufferers some hope that the outcomes from that condition can be changed.

We have heard about three things: an annual review, an inhaler technique check and a written action plan. The research shows that only 24 per cent of Scots received all three; 25 per cent received one; and 17 per cent reported receiving none. This is an important matter, and I know that the minister will consider it to be so. We would, I think, all agree that every person with an asthma diagnosis should be offered all three elements; they should know that that is their basic treatment plan and entitlement.

In my final minute, I ask the minister, as others have done, to update us on the care action plan and to point to some specific points of action that the Government has undertaken, so that people with asthma can feel that moves are being made and improvements for their care are being put in place.

Again, I thank Emma Harper for securing the debate and all the members who have contributed to it.

Figures that were obtained by Scottish Labour for my region show that the longest turnaround times for ambulances at Ayr hospital and Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary were more than 24 hours. In addition, waits of well over an hour have been recorded for critical purple-code call-outs. Does the minister agree that, although our paramedics and NHS staff are working hard and are under pressure, this Government’s mismanagement of the NHS is failing patients and staff? Will the minister explain what work—beyond holding meetings—it will do collaboratively across the NHS to address the pressures on ambulance services?

I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour and I thank members across the chamber for their contributions.

On the whole, across the Parliament, we believe that the Cass report is a considered scientific paper and that that message should go out from the Parliament. If members get the opportunity to watch the evidence from Dr Hilary Cass yesterday, they will see that the report has been pulled together by a clinician with an extremely caring side, and that shows throughout the whole hour.

There can be no doubt that this is a subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about. It is also an issue that has become needlessly complex when, in reality, what we want is for the best and the right care to be available for all those people who need it.

It would not do to pretend that the only people who are concerned about the issue are people who we deem to be out of touch. It is a big issue for a lot of people. They are discussing the issue and contacting their MSPs, so we have a responsibility to take leadership in this area.

There are legitimate concerns that must be addressed in how the Government responds to the Cass report. Fortunately, Dr Cass has provided some clarity for us, and we need to heed that clarity. I will make a short mention of my colleague Claire Baker, who as early as 2022 was asking the Parliament to look at the interim report and to show support for the clinicians who we know were left feeling vulnerable. That is why this Parliament and Government should be involved in the decisions around the Cass review.

The findings of the Cass review should be implemented without delay. There are many children and young people with gender dysphoria who need some certainty, and we are in a position to provide them with that. Pausing the use of puberty blockers was the right first step in providing that certainty. My party welcomes that decision, but now we need to move forward and ensure that quick and responsive services are available to those young people, as was discussed by many members—in particular, Pauline McNeill and Ruth Maguire. I also add my thanks to people who have shared their stories, so that we can get it right for future generations.

Unfortunately, we recently had a Government tripping over itself on messaging and substance, and that trend caused confusion. The confusion has affected people’s lives, and that is not acceptable. As my colleague Jackie Baillie indicated, we need some leadership, and we hope that we will get that now.

The SNP now has new leadership. With that comes the opportunity to accept that there were mistakes and that we should look at more sensible approaches. It is our position that we will make every effort to do that with the Government, as members will see from our amendment, and we thank the Government for supporting it.

Our message is that we do not need another working group, because the work has been done. Dr Cass and her team are widely respected, and there is no doubt that the evidence in the report is good. Dr Cass confirmed to us that she has been discussing her work with the minister since 2022, so there is nothing unexpected in the report. The Government knew what was coming, and the evidence session yesterday at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee confirmed that we could be moving on. The longer we delay, the more young people will experience seemingly endless waits, and no one wants that.

I will finish my remarks there, because I know that we are tight for time. Again, I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate.

Thank you. That is one of the issues that we need to get right for both clinicians and young people.

I wonder if you could you give us a little information. One thing that has interested us is people presenting at the clinics who are same-sex attracted and how we make sure that there is that space for those young people. You mentioned a case earlier in which a person reflected on what had happened to them in that regard. If I put that issue in the context of a conversion therapy bill, do you think that we need to take that apart and look at having a bill that deals with conversion therapy in relation to same-sex attraction and trans identity? Should we consider doing that?

That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

You have covered a lot of what I was going to ask about. I am interested in the notion that, if we want to meet more targets, particularly on childhood obesity, we need to move away from talking about things to taking action. I believe that Governments must take responsibility for their part of the picture: it is not all about individual choice, because we know that communities are not set up that way, especially in areas that have high levels of health inequality. If you were going to give us homework, on what three areas could the committee achievably push the Government to take action?

Why were no trans people included in the review team?

There is talk about labelling or not labelling foods, particularly on menus when people eat out. I am interested in that, as well. Where are you on that?