Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Scottish Labour, as the party that led the way with the introduction of the smoking ban, will fully support legislation that we hope will lead to the creation of a tobacco-free generation and a tobacco-free Scotland. It is welcome that the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party have come to support Labour’s long-standing position that banning single-use vapes is critical in tackling youth vaping, in the interests of both young people’s health and the environment in which they exist.

Given that Cancer Research UK notes in its briefing ahead of today’s statement that the aim to deliver a smoke-free Scotland by 2034 is well off track, what plans can the minister set out, over and above those that she outlined in her statement, for getting that back on track? Given that vaping legislation is not expected to be implemented for more than a year, can she set out what preparatory and preventative work with our young people will take place between now and then?

I begin by thanking the committee for its work and its report. As my colleague Paul O’Kane said, we accept the committee’s recommendations in full and agree that the legislation is necessary to tidy up the statute book. As we have heard, this is a piece of technical legislation that brings the 2018 act in line with the Court of Session ruling and does so in a manner that ensures that definitions outlined in the Equality Act 2010 are protected.

I note from the committee’s report that the cabinet secretary was pressed on why it took the Government as long as it did to bring forward legislation in the aftermath of the Court of Session ruling. I recognise that the cabinet secretary was keen to pursue other legislative routes to achieve the aims set out within the bill. Clearly, that was not possible and primary legislation has been required. I agree with the cabinet secretary that the bill achieves the requisite removal of any confusion that might be caused.

I am also glad that assurance has been provided stating that the bill has, in effect, a single purpose and that it does not impact the intentions of the act originally passed by the Scottish Parliament. Achieving fairer gender representation on public boards remains of the utmost importance and it is critical that we continue doing all that we can to ensure that women across Scotland are provided with opportunities to sit on the boards of public authorities and that the long-standing barriers to their doing so are removed. The legislation is important and it is right that the bill we are debating today should not detract from its good intentions.

The most recent progress report, which was published in August last year, confirmed that progress has been made, with gender balance being achieved in two thirds of the public authorities listed in the original legislation. However, that also confirms that a further third of public bodies still need to meet that key target. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the next progress report shows even greater developments in the area.

Women’s contribution to public life across Scotland ought to be recognised. Without doubt, the barriers to women holding the most senior positions and having a seat at the boardroom table have been in place for far too long. We must be absolutely clear that nothing will stand in the way of Parliament breaking down those barriers. I am content that the bill will have no detrimental impact on that effort.

I again thank the committee for its report and support the remarks by my colleague Paul O’Kane.

Recent reports on diversity monitoring and pay gaps for 2021-22 show that the ethnicity pay gap for all staff increased from 27.6 per cent in 2021 to 30.1 per cent in 2022. Furthermore, in 2022 just 18 per cent of applications for jobs in the Scottish Parliament were from minority ethnic candidates—compared with 78 per cent having been from white candidates—and gaps exist in respect of success rates from those applications.

Can the corporate body be clearer about the steps that it is taking in the coming financial year to ensure not only that staff from minority ethnic backgrounds are paid fairly, but that vacancies are adequately promoted to ensure their accessibility to such candidates?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it is taking to address any ethnicity-related pay gap among SPCB staff. (S6O-03215)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to address any barriers to women’s participation in the creative workforce. (S6O-03219)

As you have said, women’s participation in the creative workforce is vital to the growth of the Scottish economy. However, access to affordable, flexible childcare is very limited. The considerable cost and restricted operating hours of childcare services mean that women who wish to return to the creative sector after having children often find it difficult to do so. Does the minister agree that cross-portfolio working is essential, and does she accept that Government cuts to councils are exacerbating those problems? Does she realise that a fair funding settlement for councils that provide services such as childcare could be critical to removing barriers to women’s participation in the creative workforce?

We heard a lot of views from people who were involved in vigils about the literature that was being given out to people who sought healthcare and why they felt that they had to provide it. Did the consultation touch on that issue? Did you form a view on the issue of literature?

I am interested to know a wee bit more about the consultation and, in particular, whether you feel that you were able to reach out to people who, as you acknowledged, have opposing views on the issue. How did you go about the consultation and make sure that you sought the views of both sides?

Thank you, minister, for your opening statement, which links to the theme that I have been asked to cover, which is the impacts on people accessing services for healthcare, and on those who wish to keep their rights to their views on the matter. Do you believe that we can do both of those things with the bill? What will that impact look like if the bill is passed?

Did people who said that they were fearful of having the zones offer alternatives? If so, did you consider the alternatives that were offered?