Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I was fortunate enough to open the debate as well, so I will not take up too much of everyone’s time in closing.

In closing on behalf of Scottish Labour, I feel that it is important to thank members on all sides of the chamber for the debate. I know that the public will hear today that the Parliament wants to get this legislation right. In the chamber today, we have heard time and again how important it is that we uphold everyone’s human rights. That is the case, but those rights are not absolute, and the rights of women to receive healthcare are really important to us in the Scottish Parliament. The question is whether the bill balances those rights correctly. Monica Lennon and Rona Mackay reminded us of the reality for women who are accessing care, which is that, at times, they can find that views are expressed in a way that they find harassing.

It is clear that the Parliament has a responsibility to take action to make sure that women can access that healthcare. Scottish Labour members, like other members, acknowledge that people have differing views on the issue. That is why—as other members have said—it is so important that we have the opportunity to take evidence and scrutinise it, and to debate the issues in the chamber.

We appreciate the way in which all witnesses, in both the public and private sessions, gave us their views in a courteous way, no matter their position on the bill. Ruth Maguire mentioned that in her contribution. It is not easy, particularly if someone is coming to speak against the principles of the bill, but all of that was done in an extremely courteous way. As the committee convener, Clare Haughey, said, weighing up human rights should not be taken lightly, and the committee believes that scrutiny is so important. I hope that the stage 1 report reflects that the committee scrutinised the legislation, and the debate today shows how seriously we, in this place, are taking this particular bill.

As the minister said, we are coming together to find common cause on a very complex issue, and I appreciate members’ discussions today. As many members have stated, legislating in this area has to be done in a proportionate way to ensure freedom of expression and rights, including rights to access healthcare. Monica Lennon helpfully reminded us that it is not easy to complete the stage 1 process for bills such as this. In fact, that is why we have the other stages—so that we can all work together. As the member in charge of the bill said in her contribution, and as I am sure she will reiterate, if we work together, we can look at the issues that were raised by members.

Bob Doris spoke about protected premises and how to ensure that we future proof the relevant provisions and get them right, as some people have indicated that there might be changes in the future. In Alex Cole-Hamilton’s speech and interventions, he discussed the restriction, extension or reduction of the zones. How much power should we place in the hands of the Executive and how much should come back to the Parliament? We can discuss all those things at the next stage.

Meghan Gallacher and others spoke about enforcement and how we ensure that that is done absolutely appropriately and that our police force has the support that it needs.

I spoke about the fact that it is important to ensure that people have the right to undertake legitimate trade union activity in hospital grounds.

We discussed the issue of silent prayer, which was raised and, rightly, scrutinised at committee. We need to consider how we ensure that the bill is correct.

In closing, I say that Scottish Labour supports the general principles of the bill and we will vote as such at decision time. We welcome the good will from members across the chamber and, in particular, from Gillian Mackay. Again, I thank the committee, the clerks and the witnesses. We look forward to robust cross-party working through the next stages of the bill.

I, too, thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The 50th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is, of course, worth remembering. The legacy of the act is one of our absolute successes, as thousands of lives have been saved year after year. The act evidences the power of proper democratic policy and a shared commitment to improving the lives of ordinary people. We should spend more time pointing out the history of such successes, as I fear that, at times, understandably, the public think that far too little of substance goes on in many of the Parliaments across the world.

As we know, the landmark legislation was a product of many years of campaigns by people from across the labour movement and, of course, by forward thinkers in the world of business who understood that a safe and healthy workplace is a productive and prosperous one. I have no doubt that many gigantic corporations could do with learning that lesson once again.

The figures are now better, but we must remain vigilant about health and safety in the workplace. As we know, Scotland has the highest rate of workplace fatalities in any part of the UK, so we must keep the matter at the top of our agenda in the Scottish Parliament. It is key that we properly enforce corporate responsibility for the death of workers under corporations’ care.

As many members have mentioned, many of us attended local workers memorial day events on Saturday. I attended the East Ayrshire event, which was run by the Ayrshire trades council. It is the stories that people tell us about their family members that keep us all fighting.

For too long, corporations with turnovers of billions of pounds have fought tooth and nail to ensure that they do not have to recognise their responsibility for the deaths and injuries of workers. In some cases, they even do everything that they can to not take financial responsibility for the harms that have been caused.

That is completely unacceptable, and I am sure that almost all of us in this Parliament would want the balance to be tipped in favour of ordinary hard-working people rather than those gigantic corporations that make enormous profits.

I completely agree with Bill Kidd’s motion—it is time to see how we can build on the lessons of the 1974 act and update employment law to reflect the changing world of work and the wisdom that we have gathered over the years, to make it work for us today. Just one death or serious injury in the workplace that could have been avoided is one too many. Until we have reached the goal of no deaths in the workplace, there is a great deal of work for us all to do, and I commit to continuing with that work.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, by not adequately funding GP services, this Government has overseen the development of a two-tier health system whereby the worst off go without and even those on lower incomes are forced to pay for themselves or their loved ones to see a GP?

Today, we have with us in the public gallery care workers who are bringing the Scottish Trades Union Congress missing millions campaign to Parliament. Can the Government hear the workers outside, and answer them: does the Scottish Government support the STUC’s missing millions campaign, and will the Government ever deliver for our essential care workers?

I am extremely happy to help out Jeremy Balfour. This will be an investment in our young people, which, in turn, will be an investment in our society, and there is clear evidence that what we gain from doing that will be far more than the cost will ever be.

The wealthiest in our society seem to gain the most, currently. A country that operates in that way only further ingrains inequality, and the consequences of that—Jeremy Balfour might want to listen to this—will be felt for generations to come and cost the country for generations. I do not want that to happen, and I believe that most members in the chamber do not want that, either.

Surely the fact that we are still talking about austerity in 2024—a full 14 years after that short-sighted economic strategy began—says a lot about the clear fact that it simply does not work. As I have said, I am sure that the vast majority of us in the Parliament—certainly Labour members—agree that we do not want policies that reflect inequality in our society.

The motion mentions devolution, as my colleague Paul O’Kane has said. More devolution is, of course, welcome, but we must use the powers that we have in a timely manner, and it is the responsibility of Opposition parties to hold the Government to account on its record.

We recently learned, following freedom of information requests from my colleague Paul O’Kane, that 116 people in Scotland died while waiting for their adult disability payment to be approved. Some of the same problems are associated with the callous disinterest of the Department for Work and Pensions system. We should all stand up and say that that is absolutely unacceptable. I am sure that Government members will agree that the whole point of retrieving such powers was to counteract that flawed approach, so we must all be vigilant in ensuring that we raise any issues that come to us.

We must do better with all our legislative powers and strive to maintain respect for social security. Without that, it does not take much for opportunistic politicians across the different Parliaments to come in and degrade the entire system. That has been happening throughout my entire adult life, and we should not imagine that we are any less prone to it in Scotland.

I will play my role in pushing any new Labour Government to invest in our social security system. My front-bench colleague mentioned many ways in which we will do that through a whole-system approach and by using the new deal for workers to maximise what we can do for working people in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.

Labour has a very strong record of lifting people, including children, out of poverty, and I have every confidence that it will do so again. I have always played my part in shaping the Labour movement, and I will continue to do so.

I say again that we must all work together where we can to ensure that we fight inequality. When we see austerity—

I agree that we must reverse the two-child benefit cap; indeed, I am on record as supporting that position. The policy has, quite clearly, led to misery and distress for many families, and it strikes me as exactly the kind of cruel policy designed to grab tabloid headlines that has become the Conservative Government’s trademark. My view is now on the record again.

Our welfare system should not be designed to discourage families and victimise children before they even have a foothold in life. The entire purpose of the welfare state was to create a safety net from the cradle to the grave, but that concept has been continuously degraded year after year, while the wealthiest in our society have amassed yet more wealth.

—we must ensure that we work together to change it.

I thank the minister for her statement and agree that it is right that we proceed carefully and compassionately. Given that Dr Cass’s report is founded on strong scientific evidence, and given that there were interim recommendations, we in the Parliament saw what was coming to us. Why will the Government not be clearer in outlining its position on whether it believes that all the recommendations ought to be implemented? Does the minister believe that sitting on the fence to protect the stability of the Bute house agreement is a tenable position?

Further to that—

The Parliament is aware that, this morning, Sandyford clinic announced that it will no longer prescribe puberty blockers to 16 and 17-year-olds—a key recommendation in the recently released Cass review. Members in the chamber should know whether that decision has been taken as a result of any Scottish Government intervention and whether the First Minister and his Government are supportive of a wider acceptance of the recommendations in the Cass review. After the poor and woeful answers that we received yesterday in the chamber, will the First Minister intervene, where the health secretary has not, and ensure that a statement is made in the Parliament to clarify the Government’s confused position and to allow members an opportunity to question the Government on this very important matter?