Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber. If we want to meet all the expectations that we have set out in the Parliament over the past four years for the building of homes and infrastructure for roads, railways and cycle lanes, and for decent public services such as hospitals, schools and community centres, we have to acknowledge that we need skills and trades. That includes traditional trades, along with skills in retrofitting. Our joiners, plumbers and roofers—a whole variety of skills—are so important to our future.

In order to meet our climate target—our most important commitment to future generations—we must ensure that there is a skill set in the construction industry. That is why it is important that this debate has been brought to the chamber.

I am pleased to see that the data suggests that young people see a future in the sector. It is important that we ensure that the sector is well regulated and safe, and that it has strong terms and conditions for those who work in it. I have met with trade union colleagues in construction and I know that we have some work to do, but I recognise the on-going work with the trade unions and the construction industry.

During my time in Parliament, I have been fascinated to hear about colleagues’ knowledge in this area, and I have learned a great deal about the sector. Tonight’s debate is such an important one. The work to ensure that there is on-going, good-quality construction work in the future, and to ensure the retrofitting of and continued existence of the buildings that we need, must be done—as other members have said—in tandem with the progression of construction training.

During my time as an MSP, I have had the great pleasure of meeting a number of trades workers from a great variety of trades and backgrounds right across my South Scotland region. I have attended the annual Scottish Traditional Building Forum event in the Parliament grounds, and I will do so again this year.

Young workers in particular recognise that they need the skills to enable us to meet the challenge of reaching net zero and to deliver on the retrofitting of buildings and the building of our infrastructure and community settings, not only now but way into the future. Lots of skills need to be developed.

The consistent message that I have heard from businesses and workers across the sector is that the Scottish Government must set policies to establish clearer training routes, invest in local training and, in particular, drive a desire to save some of the skills that are out there at the moment. We have heard about that from other members today.

I have previously raised in the chamber the challenge that young apprentices face in accessing the local education that will allow us to retain those skills. People seem to find it difficult to find the right provision to enable them to keep up their competencies and qualifications and to become a professional in the sector. If the minister has any information on that, I would really appreciate hearing it. The ability to undertake apprenticeships locally makes a great difference in rural areas such as the one that I represent. That model really helps our young people to take on the roles and jobs that Gordon MacDonald spoke about in his opening speech.

This is an important sector for the Parliament to look at. I thank everybody for their contributions, and I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I begin by saying thank you to Liam McArthur for continuing the work in the Scottish Parliament on this important reform. Despite it undoubtedly being a topic that many might choose to shy away from, he has allowed it to come back to the chamber today. I know that, along with Liam McArthur, there are organisations and individuals that have been working for many years to change the narrative in order to help people who desperately need their Government to act. I hope that today provides the foundations to achieve that.

To be clear, the bill is a fundamental step towards compassion, liberty and respect for the dignity of the individual. With proper revision and attention to the many details that have been raised by professionals and advocacy groups, we can secure a historic piece of legislation at the end of this process. Doing so would deliver the kind of forward thinking and truly generous use of power that this Parliament was built to secure. Alternatively, we could instead do as the Parliament has so often done in the past: we could be hesitant, leaving the electorate frustrated by their Parliament’s lack of progressive leadership.

The list of countries and states that have already introduced legislation in this area or are in the process of doing so—I include my colleague Kim Leadbeater’s bill at Westminster—is growing every month. As parliamentarians in Scotland, are we simply going to ignore the groundswell of public opinion towards such a reform? I truly hope not.

I believe that we need this legislation and that to once again turn our back on compassion and choice would be a grave mistake, driven by fear. I know that many members believe in the principle behind the bill but are apprehensive about its implementation. How will it work in practice?

I worked in healthcare, and I have worked with clinicians and patients. Every day, clinicians make assessments and patients make decisions about how their treatment will be managed. Sometimes, those decisions are straightforward and, sometimes, they are difficult and complex. Our constituents include clinicians and patients, and they know that healthcare should be compassionate and about choice.

People support the principles of the bill, and it is our job to get the balance right in the bill. In 2024, Dignity in Dying Scotland conducted the largest poll yet on the issue in Scotland. It found that, in every constituency in Scotland, there was a majority in favour of introducing assisted dying legislation.

I believe that the change is inevitable and, in this Parliament, we should put our efforts into ensuring that our constituents have robust legislation, to ensure the safe delivery of that change. We should be in politics to shift power away from the centre and to empower the individuals who have put their trust in us. What right do we have to sit in judgment and tell a person that they must struggle on in pain, powerless?

After all, in practice, forms of assistance already exist in Scotland. Care is often omitted because nothing further can be done. Those are serious and well-considered decisions that are taken by experts in conjunction with patients and their families. There is nothing flippant about them, and they happen every day. Why should that be the case, yet a person who honestly tells us that they wish to be in control of an unwinnable, intolerable struggle is ignored? Worse still, there are Scots who are being forced to travel abroad without their family around them in order to end their lives—isolated from all loved ones in order to die far away from home.

I want us to help. As parliamentarians, we must have the strength to get the bill right. Compassion and fairness are important in life, and it is important that compassion and fairness are also available to those with a terminal illness as they approach their death. I accept that the bill must contain safeguards against coercion and around the worry about lack of services and support for staff. Scrutiny of the bill has allowed concerns to be aired, and Liam McArthur has shown great determination in ensuring that compassion and choice, along with a clear commitment to safeguards, have been addressed as the bill has progressed.

We are legislators. Our decisions today will have profound ramifications for many individuals. If we do not pass the bill, there will be serious consequences for many people who have difficult days and years ahead. We need to give people every choice that is available to them, and we must seek to diminish pain and suffering where we can. That is the humane thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. That is why I will support the bill tonight.

Recent freedom of information requests from Scottish Labour to health boards have revealed just how bad things are for women on the ground. Thousands are stuck on waiting lists for treatment for gynaecological conditions. Waiting times have dramatically increased, despite Scottish Government manifesto commitments to improve women’s health. A survey found that 90 per cent of women have concerns about accessing comprehensive health screening. Women are feeling very much left behind.

Nothing in the programme for government will improve outcomes for women in the here and now, and progress on women’s health has already been slow. Does the Government intend to deliver on its commitment to improve waiting times for women? When will women start to see a difference on the ground?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work that it is doing to improve women’s health outcomes. (S6O-04622)

Given what the minister said, I will not move amendment 480 but I will seek to bring it back at stage 3 after understanding what the barriers are.

Amendment 480 not moved.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. I previously owned a rental property.

I am happy to speak to the amendment that is lodged in my name. All my amendments seek to strengthen the capacity of local authorities to assess rent conditions in their area. My amendment 480 adds a requirement that regulations made by the Scottish ministers may not increase the time period within which local authorities are required to submit their periodic assessment of rent conditions. Amendment 480 seeks to optimise the time span for information that will be collected by local authorities and to increase the accuracy of that information in the medium to long term. The amendment would still allow the Scottish ministers to change the intervals at which information about rents is shared by local authorities, but, importantly, it would limit the minister from extending the reporting period beyond the five-year range that is proposed. In short, the amendment would ensure that the data collection period will not be allowed to increase to six, seven, or eight-year intervals, for example. I note that other amendments propose limiting the frequency of reporting to not more than once per year. That is reasonable, but my amendment would ensure that the five-year range remains optimal and that we collect an accurate national picture over time. Such a picture does not yet exist in Scotland and, once initiated, it should be maintained. This is an important amendment.

I thank Stephen Kerr for raising a really important issue. I hope that the minister will have more to say about the issue—families deserve more. Does the minister feel that the Government has done enough to ensure that the shared learning from significant adverse events happens is shared with staff? If the families are not getting the details, how do we make sure that those things do not happen again? Our staff are also at risk.

Alcohol harm continues to be a key concern in Scotland. In East and South Ayrshire, an area that I represent, a combined total of 50 lives were lost to alcohol in 2023. Today, a briefing signed by more than 70 organisations has been published, which calls for urgent action on alcohol harm. It states that the current Scottish Government action is not proportionate to the scale of the problem and it makes a range of recommendations around early diagnosis for liver disease and funding for recovery treatment and support services. Will the First Minister consider that important briefing’s proposals as he prepares to publish the programme for government next week?

I, too, thank Emma Harper for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that she has great knowledge and skills in this area, and I praise the on-going work that she is committed to carrying out in the Parliament and beyond.

Scottish Labour welcomes world asthma day 2025 and recognises this year’s theme, which, as members have said, is “Make Inhaled Treatments Accessible for ALL”. As we have heard, that is important, because two out of three asthma-related deaths are preventable.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic non-communicable diseases and, today, we are reminded of its prevalence in Scotland. Although there is no cure, most people can control their symptoms well with asthma inhalers and other medicines, which improve their overall quality of life and outcomes. That is why this year’s theme is so important. It emphasises the need to ensure that all sufferers can access inhaled medication and appropriately manage the disease, which is crucial in reducing the frequency and severity of attacks.

However, the 2025 Asthma and Lung UK survey found that only 30 per cent of sufferers reported receiving all three basic provisions of asthma care. That is deeply worrying, and I know that everyone in the chamber will be concerned about it, because the three basic elements of care ensure that the disease is effectively managed and controlled and, importantly, that deaths are prevented.

I turn to inequalities. We know that, in many cases, women have far worse health outcomes than men, and that is no different in respiratory health. Women are more likely to have asthma, to have more severe symptoms and to die from their asthma. Many women experience a worsening of symptoms during menstruation and are at risk of potentially fatal asthma attacks every month, yet there is very little research on or understanding about that.

During last year’s world asthma day debate, I raised a point about data and the lack of

“an accurate collection method or an agreed reporting system across health boards”

in Scotland. Following that, I asked whether the Government would consider gathering greater data on the impact of gender on asthma outcomes to help us to better understand that inequality. Perhaps the minister might have some words on that that she could feed back to us in her closing remarks.

On the data point, in last year’s debate, I noted that the Government pointed to on-going work

“with Asthma and Lung UK and other key partners on commissioning a full national audit programme for respiratory conditions.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2024; c 119, 121.]

I know that the minister recognises the importance of that and, as Emma Harper said, attends many of the related events. The minister knows that improving patient treatment outcomes is important, so any information that she has on that would be gratefully received.

I would like to raise concerns about the Government’s progress on the respiratory health policy. At First Minister’s question time last week, I highlighted Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland’s concerns that the Government is “stagnating” in its delivery of the respiratory care action plan. I take the opportunity to re-emphasise those points and urge the Government to make progress on respiratory health, which often receives less attention than other conditions.

There is much that we can do, and I know that the minister will be keen to move the situation forward. Respiratory outcomes in Scotland remain comparatively worse than those in other European countries. Without action on the issue and raising awareness in the chamber, asthma and respiratory health will continue to remain a persistent public health problem. I know that nobody in the chamber wants that, so working together is really important. Again, I thank Emma Harper for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I recently sent a letter to the Ayrshire councils seeking an update on the deal’s delivery. The response acknowledged that progress on delivery had not been as originally envisaged and noted that, at the halfway point of the programme’s lifetime, only a small percentage of available investment had been realised. It also noted that, in response to delays, partners, in consultation with the Government, had undertaken a review of the programme.

Can the Government advise when the decision to review was made and what the outcome of the review was, to ensure that my constituents can see the potential and the benefits of economic growth?