Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really helpful. Thank you.

Dr Cass, I want to explore the approaches to gender care for young people and the move to what you have described as the gender-affirmative model, which is the dominant model of care. You have talked about clinicians feeling pressure to simply affirm children and that that could lead to diagnostic overshadowing; for example, you have spoken about mental health issues that have been missed. How would a conversion therapy ban affect that situation? Could you advise how we might go forward with a ban to ensure that we give children protected time to consider things?

My final question is on a point that was raised with the committee, which was about including someone with trans identity in the review team. Did you consider doing that?

I thank my colleague Richard Leonard for bringing this important debate to the chamber and pay tribute to members of EIS-FELA, who are fighting passionately for pay and conditions that reflect the work that they do in the further education sector.

Further education lecturers make up a skilled and dedicated workforce and they have my full support and solidarity as we continue to stand with them on the picket lines and stand up for them in the Parliament. It is the responsibility of Opposition and back-bench members to make the point to the minister that it is a fair fight and we should bring it to the Parliament.

I have stood side by side with further education lecturers and other staff at Ayrshire College, and the overwhelming feeling that they expressed is of being undervalued. We can talk about valuing those staff, but the sector needs action. It needs members on these benches and the Government’s back-bench members to talk about the action that the Government can take.

Our further education workforce teaches key skills and sets up people for a life in skilled employment. The members of that workforce are experts in their individual fields and choose to dedicate their lives to improving others’ outcomes. However, Colleges Scotland and the Scottish Government still cannot bring themselves to recognise that value. As the motion states, the offer that is on the table represents a real-terms pay reduction. That means that, while the Scottish Government is underfunding colleges, as we have heard, and cuts are felt across the country, Colleges Scotland is doubling down and making an insulting offer to lecturers.

Further education lecturers have been forced into industrial action. Action short of a strike was not met with an acceptable response. In some cases, the actions of management in colleges have fallen well short of the expectations that are set out in the fair work framework. The minister’s response should reference those matters. It is nothing short of appalling that our lecturers are being treated in this way. They do not deserve to have to go through such a gruelling battle simply to see their pay and conditions reflect the valuable work that they do. They deserve so much better and they will continue to have the support of members on these benches.

I turn briefly to students. I put on the record my thanks to all the students who have come out in support of the action that is being taken by their lecturers. When attempts have been made to pit students against lecturers, it has been truly heartening to see so many students standing with their lecturers, recognising their importance and the importance of the action that they are taking. The sector is so important to ordinary working people, and the students recognise that.

The minister will not like to hear this, but my colleague mentioned that he is often described as the missing man, and he must do better. I can say to him today that these workers will not stop their fight for better pay and conditions and the trade union movement will not be deterred by a lack of co-operation from the Scottish Government. That will merely intensify efforts, and I urge the minister to get key stakeholders around the table and intervene.

The reality is that the further education lecturers’ ask is not unreasonable. The work that they do is invaluable and the impact that their efforts have on improving skills, supporting employment opportunities, growing the economy and delivering positive outcomes for those in areas that need it most cannot go unnoticed and unrewarded. The minister must act.

I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I agree with Bill Kidd: what is not to like about another evening in which we get the opportunity to talk about the work, the benefit and the importance of the trade union movement? I have attended May day events since I was about 15 years old, and I now march with my children to mark this important Labour day and to help them to understand why we need that solidarity in our communities to this very day.

I note my entry in the register of members’ interests as a lifelong member of the trade union movement, a Unite member and convener of the Communication Workers Union parliamentary group.

I agree whole-heartedly with Maggie Chapman’s motion. Observing these days to remember workers is important, as is raising their voices. It is our duty as MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, to bring these matters to Parliament and to speak about them in the chamber. Those of us who were born into the trade union movement have a responsibility to do so.

I thank Maggie Chapman for her work with the Fire Brigades Union; I know that she has worked really hard to support all manner of workers’ rights in the firefighting services. I know that, in particular, she has championed the DECON campaign and continues to do so, which is much appreciated across the trade union movement.

As we have heard, trade unions started a number of years ago with the industrialisation of the late 18th and 19th centuries, which meant that thousands of workers needed to move to towns and cities to live and work in poverty. The success of British industry in the 100 years from 1780 was built on the exploitation of hundreds of thousands of workers, who—as we have heard—worked long days for miserable wages and lived in a very poor standard of accommodation. Workers realised that they could fight ruthless employers and inhumane working conditions only by coming together, and so trade unions were born.

Trade unions were fiercely opposed by owners of industry. When I was researching my speech, I thought to myself, “I fear that perhaps elements of Government and big business today continue to fear the trade unions and oppose them, so we must continue the struggle that started hundreds of years ago.”

The most celebrated pioneers of British trade unionism—perhaps the first who organised—are the Tolpuddle martyrs: six Dorset farm labourers, who were, as members will know, eventually deported for joining or creating a trade union. I have read a lot about them, and I would, at some point, like to attend the festival that celebrates those brave workers. They realised that coming together and working in solidarity would yield results.

Although many of us in the trade union movement would acknowledge that we do not frequently get results, many members have spoken tonight about coming together and getting results. I am running out of time, but I just mention this: if people enjoy May day as a celebration of trade union activism, they must attend the Durham miners gala. In my view, it is one of the finest dates in the trade union calendar—a time to be proud of our movement and stand next to so many trade unionists and activists who work relentlessly to ensure that we fight for what is right.

Since 1871, Durham miners gala has celebrated trade union collectivism, community spirit and the international solidarity that so many members have spoken about. It gets bigger and better every year, so if anyone gets the chance, they should go.

I finish with a quote from the gala:

“The past we inherit, the future we build.”

Solidarity with the workers!

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether it has funded local government adequately to deliver the services that it has responsibility for. (S6O-03370)

Councils and residents in South Scotland and beyond are feeling the true impact of successive SNP budgets, backed up by the Greens, that have taken the axe to council funding and services. Does the minister understand the level of cuts in local authorities that his Government has imposed on the poorest communities in Scotland? Is it not the case that Scotland is now suffering from two out-of-touch, out-of-road Governments that it would be far better off without?

In opening the debate for Scottish Labour, I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for producing its stage 1 report, the clerks for assisting the committee in its work and all of those who gave evidence on the matter. I also thank Gillian Mackay for introducing the legislation and for working across parties to achieve its aims.

On a personal level, I have been supportive of the introduction of safe access zones to protect women who are accessing abortion services. It has long been my view and that of my party that Scotland ought to be leaders in this area. However, the Government has been slow to act, which means that Scotland has to catch up with other parts of the UK. That situation could have been avoided. The various summits and conversations that the former First Minister led did not lead to any sort of prompt action, as we predicted would be the case at the time. Having said that, I make it absolutely clear that Scottish Labour supports the member’s proposed legislation. It is right that we take all steps that are necessary to protect women accessing abortion services, and I believe that the introduction of safe access zones will achieve that.

The truth is, as we have heard, that access to abortion clinics is access to healthcare, and we cannot continue to condone the intimidation that women face when accessing healthcare to which they are rightfully entitled. All members understand that visiting a healthcare setting can be worrying and stressful for a variety of reasons. Women accessing sexual health services, specifically abortion services, could be going through an extremely challenging, emotionally traumatic and physically draining time in their lives. We heard about that in our evidence taking, and we heard about feelings of stress resulting from the presence of intimidating behaviours. Women need to have safe access to the services and advice that they require, and the bill will work to achieve that.

I turn to the stage 1 report and the response to the committee from the member in charge of the bill. Scottish Labour supports the committee’s view that restrictions must be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the bill. We are of the view that any restrictions on human rights that are imposed by legislation must be kept to an absolute minimum, and we are content that the bill achieves that aim.

We could debate many areas, but, of course, we have time restrictions, so I will focus on three key areas that I consider to be important to get right as we go through the next stages of the bill.

I agree that robust post-legislative scrutiny will be absolutely required to obtain an understanding of how the legislation is working, and I agree with the committee’s recommendation on that. I am pleased that the member in charge of the bill has accepted the committee’s view, and that she will seek to lodge amendments to resolve the issue. The member will work on a cross-party basis, so I believe that those amendments will deliver the reassurance that the committee has sought.

On a similar point, Scottish Labour is of the view that a commonsense approach to implementation is absolutely required. That will require individual cases to be considered in relation to their own set of circumstances. The report states that

“operational management of enforcement of the legislation will have a critical role to play in ensuring its appropriate implementation.”

I consider that to be a key point, and I would be interested to hear from the minister on the Government’s view on ensuring that implementation is as successful as possible.

It is important that the bill protects the rights to engage in trade union activity in relation to the advancement of workers’ rights. The right of workers in our health service to protest and call for better pay and terms and conditions, for example, must not be undermined indirectly by any legislation. The committee’s recommendation to expand the exemption relating to trade union activity to allay trade unions’ concerns that such activity may be considered as an offence is important, and I hope that the member will continue to engage with the trade unions—specifically our health trade unions—to identify what work might need to be carried out to allay any further fears on that matter.

Finally, the issue of silent prayer came up on various occasions when the committee took evidence. As noted in the committee’s report, members held different views on that. On a personal level, I am reassured by the clarity that Gillian Mackay provided in her letter to the committee, and I know that she will work with others to ensure that we get this right, as she has been very helpful in our discussions.

Once again, I reiterate Scottish Labour’s support for the bill at stage 1, and I commit my party to working with Gillian Mackay to improve the bill in many of the areas that members have spoken about so far and, I am sure, will speak about, to ensure that the bill enters its next stages with as much cross-party support as possible. The bill is clearly required to protect women’s access to abortion services.

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the number of private GP clinics has reportedly tripled since the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6T-01957)

For patients, the complexity in the system lies in the difficulty that they face when they try to see a GP. Over the past decade, the number of GP practices in Scotland has fallen by almost 100 to 897, and the fall is represented all over Scotland. GP numbers dropped from 4,514 in 2022 to 4,474 last year. That is regressive, not progressive. Can the cabinet secretary give the public any assurance at all that that trend will reverse? What can they expect to see this Government deliver to increase the availability of GPs to our constituents?