Seòmar agus comataidhean

I value your point about teachers. Do you think that there is space to work with trade unions as the bill goes through stage 2?

I take this opportunity to say that my thoughts are with Christina McKelvie’s family. She was incredibly kind to me in the early days of this parliamentary session.

Today, we are discussing a bill that seeks to improve the outdoor learning opportunities that are available to schoolchildren. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am not on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, so I have found the debate to be really helpful.

The bill’s core aim is to ensure that all pupils in state and grant-aided schools can experience at least four nights and five days of residential outdoor education during their school career. As we have heard in the debate, we all recognise the value of residential outdoor education for a child’s learning and development. Liz Smith’s opening speech described that in a very visual way. It is welcome that the bill seeks to address the notable decline in the number of pupils who have the opportunity to attend residential outdoor education.

The committee’s call for evidence highlighted the benefits that children stand to gain from residential stays, which have been well rehearsed in other members’ speeches, when it comes to confidence, social skills, mental wellbeing and resilience. Respondents described the benefits as “life changing”.

Through my role as Scottish Labour’s public health spokesperson, I frequently hear about the value of the outdoors and outdoor learning for both physical and mental health.

I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and for her powerful speech. It is paramount that we treat people arriving in Scotland as we would wish to be treated ourselves, and I hope that the debate will go some way towards achieving that.

People are unable to claim adequate benefits for basic survival because of immigration status, in many cases through a system that we have set up—by “we”, I mean human beings; it is human beings who set up these systems—in such a way that it means, as we have heard this evening, that they are unable to work. We put people in that position, which shows that there is a responsibility on us all to act on the recommendations that are made in the legal briefing by Professor Jen Ang. That applies at all levels of Government.

As other members have said, the briefing paper rightly challenges presumptions that reserved immigration law prevents specific groups from accessing support that would mitigate the harm that they suffer at present. The paper presents workable solutions that national and local government can pursue to achieve immediate positive change. In my view, it is our responsibility as human beings to seek solutions, not to build barriers, when others are suffering. That is why I welcome the briefing paper and the opportunity that Maggie Chapman has given us to speak tonight.

The paper is a stark reminder of why we should review legislation and challenge assumptions about how laws are implemented. Many of the actions that the paper sets out are within the abilities and devolved capacities of the Scottish Government, so let us use the powers that we have to actually help our fellow human beings.

If I think of the most basic of needs, I think of a home: everyone should have a home that meets their needs. That is the Scottish Government’s vision, it is my vision and it is our vision, but it is simply not the reality for so many people. I therefore urge the Scottish Government to use the debate as a catalyst to work on some of the solutions that Professor Jen Ang has laid out.

In order for us to see an end to homelessness, we need more action. The paper details the desperate situation of many people who are sleeping on Scotland’s streets, and I urge those at all levels of Government to act now. We have heard that one in eight people with no recourse to public funds are currently sleeping rough, with more than half having reported sleeping rough last year. It is clear that immediate action is required.

Financial support for people who are living in those extreme levels of destitution can be made possible—it is the systems that we create that cause such suffering, and that is absolutely unacceptable. Evidence shows that a third of the fair way Scotland partnership’s service users can go for months with no income.

In the short time that I have left, I will mention access to healthcare. It is no surprise that, as a result of the barriers that we have discussed, a major area of inequality is people’s health and nutritional health. People who have limited, or no, access to shelter or housing, and who are not able to work or apply for benefits, cannot gain access to basic food in order to maintain any level of health. Around 33 per cent of those who are under the restrictions that we are talking about this evening are more likely to be deprived of basic food—that is in Scotland, today. That has to be a concern not only in the here and now, but with regard to the longer-term health of any of those individuals.

Access to healthcare for people with no recourse to public funds is, at best, muddled. There needs to be an end to the barriers in that regard; people need to know that they can access healthcare at the point of need, without fear, including fear of charges that they desperately cannot afford. The paper references a number of areas that the Scottish Government can look at, and I ask the Minister for Equalities to make plans to discuss those with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care as soon as possible.

I know that I am running out of time, so I thank members for their commitments tonight.

The witnesses have already touched on some of the stuff that I was going to ask about the financial memorandum, but I would like to go back to it. As we know from written evidence, although there are some areas where we know that there will be increased costs, there could be benefits further along the line by way of costs. Could the witnesses speak a little bit about whether they think there is clarity in the bill about what additional spending there will be and what we might see in the future, in terms of spending? Is there a balance that could work?

That was helpful.

We are talking not just about financial benefits. Do you, or any of the witnesses, see the bill being helpful to other parts of the system, such as policing, healthcare or accident and emergency? Is there anything in the bill that would be beneficial to those services?

I take your point.

If there is to be additional funding in the context of the bill, where would you target that to get some of the benefits that you talk about?

Although endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in the United Kingdom, the level of data collection on it by health boards is extremely limited. Does the Government recognise that capturing more data on general practitioner referrals for endometriosis and waiting times for consultation would create greater transparency about how long it is taking to diagnose and treat endometriosis?

I also thank the cabinet secretary for his answers.

Last year, a report on neonatal deaths recommended the review of maternity units to help to assess how care for mothers and babies can be improved. As the cabinet secretary said, following that, it was recommended that Healthcare Improvement Scotland carry out inspections of maternity units from January 2025 in order to provide assurances on the care that women and babies can expect to receive. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update to the Parliament on the progress that has been made on those inspections?

I thank Tess White for bringing the debate to the chamber. I welcome the speeches by members who have already spoken on this really important matter. I will make a short contribution, following on from questions that I have asked the cabinet secretary and the minister about the provision of single-sex toilets.

For context, as others have said, single-sex spaces that are based on biological sex are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Women and girls have a right to feel safe in our public buildings such as schools and hospitals. They are often in those places when they are at their most vulnerable and, further, they require to attend those places, so Government has a responsibility to ensure that those places are safe and comply with the law.

Recently, we have heard about patients having to wait in corridors and the strain that the NHS is under. Given that, we can see why people are asking the Government to engage with them in light of the “How safe are our Scottish hospitals?” report.

We can all agree that the report’s findings are particularly worrying. For 20 years, the Scottish Government, first under Scottish Labour and now under the SNP, has required health boards to eliminate mixed-sex accommodations in hospitals. However, as my colleague Jackie Baillie indicated, at the moment, we think that only two health boards comply with that: NHS Dumfries and Galloway and NHS Orkney. That is unacceptable, and I believe that the Government must take some responsibility for it. I agree with my colleague Claire Baker and others who have said that the Government needs to have more engagement with us on those matters so that we can get the information that is required.

To go back to the questions that I asked the cabinet secretary and the minister, the issue is about engagement. I asked three separate questions—one in the chamber, to the cabinet secretary, and two written questions—on the provision of single-sex toilets. However, I feel that the Government was unable to give me full answers about the way in which it is ensuring that the laws are being applied in Scotland, and I feel that it is important for the Government to take responsibility in that regard.

The cabinet secretary’s response to the question that I asked in the chamber was:

“I say once again that those regulations are also included in the Government’s belief that all public bodies should fulfil their obligations under all pieces of legislation with reference to this issue.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; c 15.]

If the cabinet secretary is saying that that is the Government’s belief, I think that, possibly, the Government should be doing more.

I will end by asking the minister whether the Government can give us assurance that it will take some responsibility and look to assess the current situation in our NHS and other organisations, particularly ones to which the Government provides public funds. Gathering that information should not be difficult, but I think that it is essential.

I will touch on training and continuous professional development.

Dr Williams, if the bill were to be passed, would there be training requirements to support people in respect of the right to a second opinion? Is there scope for that?