Seòmar agus comataidhean

Figures that were obtained by Scottish Labour for my region show that the longest turnaround times for ambulances at Ayr hospital and Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary were more than 24 hours. In addition, waits of well over an hour have been recorded for critical purple-code call-outs. Does the minister agree that, although our paramedics and NHS staff are working hard and are under pressure, this Government’s mismanagement of the NHS is failing patients and staff? Will the minister explain what work—beyond holding meetings—it will do collaboratively across the NHS to address the pressures on ambulance services?

I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour and I thank members across the chamber for their contributions.

On the whole, across the Parliament, we believe that the Cass report is a considered scientific paper and that that message should go out from the Parliament. If members get the opportunity to watch the evidence from Dr Hilary Cass yesterday, they will see that the report has been pulled together by a clinician with an extremely caring side, and that shows throughout the whole hour.

There can be no doubt that this is a subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about. It is also an issue that has become needlessly complex when, in reality, what we want is for the best and the right care to be available for all those people who need it.

It would not do to pretend that the only people who are concerned about the issue are people who we deem to be out of touch. It is a big issue for a lot of people. They are discussing the issue and contacting their MSPs, so we have a responsibility to take leadership in this area.

There are legitimate concerns that must be addressed in how the Government responds to the Cass report. Fortunately, Dr Cass has provided some clarity for us, and we need to heed that clarity. I will make a short mention of my colleague Claire Baker, who as early as 2022 was asking the Parliament to look at the interim report and to show support for the clinicians who we know were left feeling vulnerable. That is why this Parliament and Government should be involved in the decisions around the Cass review.

The findings of the Cass review should be implemented without delay. There are many children and young people with gender dysphoria who need some certainty, and we are in a position to provide them with that. Pausing the use of puberty blockers was the right first step in providing that certainty. My party welcomes that decision, but now we need to move forward and ensure that quick and responsive services are available to those young people, as was discussed by many members—in particular, Pauline McNeill and Ruth Maguire. I also add my thanks to people who have shared their stories, so that we can get it right for future generations.

Unfortunately, we recently had a Government tripping over itself on messaging and substance, and that trend caused confusion. The confusion has affected people’s lives, and that is not acceptable. As my colleague Jackie Baillie indicated, we need some leadership, and we hope that we will get that now.

The SNP now has new leadership. With that comes the opportunity to accept that there were mistakes and that we should look at more sensible approaches. It is our position that we will make every effort to do that with the Government, as members will see from our amendment, and we thank the Government for supporting it.

Our message is that we do not need another working group, because the work has been done. Dr Cass and her team are widely respected, and there is no doubt that the evidence in the report is good. Dr Cass confirmed to us that she has been discussing her work with the minister since 2022, so there is nothing unexpected in the report. The Government knew what was coming, and the evidence session yesterday at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee confirmed that we could be moving on. The longer we delay, the more young people will experience seemingly endless waits, and no one wants that.

I will finish my remarks there, because I know that we are tight for time. Again, I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate.

Thank you. That is one of the issues that we need to get right for both clinicians and young people.

I wonder if you could you give us a little information. One thing that has interested us is people presenting at the clinics who are same-sex attracted and how we make sure that there is that space for those young people. You mentioned a case earlier in which a person reflected on what had happened to them in that regard. If I put that issue in the context of a conversion therapy bill, do you think that we need to take that apart and look at having a bill that deals with conversion therapy in relation to same-sex attraction and trans identity? Should we consider doing that?

That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

You have covered a lot of what I was going to ask about. I am interested in the notion that, if we want to meet more targets, particularly on childhood obesity, we need to move away from talking about things to taking action. I believe that Governments must take responsibility for their part of the picture: it is not all about individual choice, because we know that communities are not set up that way, especially in areas that have high levels of health inequality. If you were going to give us homework, on what three areas could the committee achievably push the Government to take action?

Why were no trans people included in the review team?

There is talk about labelling or not labelling foods, particularly on menus when people eat out. I am interested in that, as well. Where are you on that?

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?