Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, take the opportunity to welcome the minister to her role.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and to welcome international women’s day 2024 and its key theme of “Inspire Inclusion”.

It is only right that, at the start of my contribution, I focus on the global context in which we have the debate. Around the world, women face significant challenges, and some of the examples of that this year feel particularly heinous. As is noted in the motion, just over two years ago, Russia began a violent full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the impacts of that on Ukrainian women have been devastating. We know the impact that that has had on the Ukrainian people, who continue to stand so strongly in the face of significant adversity.

We know that the impact on women, in particular, is disproportionate: Ukrainian women have been displaced internally and have had to seek refuge in countries such as our own to protect their, and, in many cases, their children’s safety. These women will always be welcome here for as long as they wish to make Scotland their home, and I hope that, in good time, the option will be there for a safe return to Ukraine for those women who desire it. Scotland and the UK should always be ready to provide safe haven to those people who are fleeing horrific war.

That brings me to the suffering of women in Palestine and Israel. The attacks on 7 October and the reported treatment of Israeli women were deplorable and wholly unacceptable and have rightly been met with widespread condemnation across the world. Following that, we have witnessed all-out war on the Gaza strip and the mass killing of tens of thousands of people, with many more currently starving to death as a result of the bombardment and limited access to aid.

I have raised this many times previously—and the minister mentioned, too—that there are currently around 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Of that number, 40 per cent are considered to be at high risk, which is extremely concerning. Humanitarian aid must be allowed in to provide those women with the support that they so desperately need.

Just yesterday, MSPs and staff had the opportunity to hear from Medical Aid for Palestinians and Oxfam about their experiences from the ground. Of all the points that were raised, the most harrowing was that women in Gaza are giving birth in unsterile conditions, which is extremely dangerous for the mother and the baby. However, substantive issues do not seem to be being taken on and work does not seem to be being done in that area. We must work harder to get women the aid that they need for childbirth. As we mark international women’s day, we cannot forget those women, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they receive the support that they need before it is too late. At this stage, I fear that it might already be too late for so many women and their children.

Closer to home, I absolutely agree with the points that were set out in the motion about the fact that “achieving gender equality” is more important now than perhaps ever before. The challenges that we face remain significant. Violence against women and girls remains at a disturbingly high level, and we have seen in recent times how misogyny is ingrained in some of our largest public bodies. Our fight is by no means over, and we must continue to fight with determination to achieve the equality that we so deeply want.

Women who live in areas of higher levels of deprivation in Scotland perhaps experience inequality more than others, and that is particularly the case in the health sector. In women’s health services, we have inequalities in the uptake of human papillomavirus vaccination and screening programmes. People live longer in good health in the most affluent areas of Scotland compared with those people who live in deprived areas—for women, that gap is quite stark, at 25.7 years. That is unacceptable, and we must all strive to change it.

There is undoubtedly a need for a global approach to protecting human rights, supporting marginalised groups and amplifying the voices of women. However, it would be wrong to have this debate without recognising the challenges that we face on our own doorstep, which we must always think of.

For far too long, women’s health services have not delivered for those women in our most vulnerable communities. That creates inequality between women, which in itself is a challenge that we must work tirelessly to overcome. Without community-based provision of women’s health services that go to the individual rather than depend on the individual going to them, we will never achieve the equality that we speak about today.

International women’s day is an excellent opportunity to unite around a common purpose and to reiterate the calls that we have been making for so many years to encourage men to speak up, be accountable and be part of the fight. However, it also requires us, in this Parliament, to recognise how our decisions can impact equality and to be realistic about the experiences of people in our own country.

I look forward to listening to the contributions to the debate. There are many different angles from which we could all have approached the subject, but it is right that we take the opportunity to discuss the global context, given the extremely concerning events that are unfolding in Ukraine and the middle east.

It is important that we also look closer to home, to our more domestic position, and it is right that we look to progress as much as we can in this country in politics, in education, in the workplace and in other places. The fight ahead for women in Scotland and across the world is not an easy one. It requires the efforts of us all to achieve the equality that is so long overdue. I commit my party to doing what it can to play its role across Parliament to take that fight on.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding an increased windfall tax on the excess profits of large oil and gas companies, in light of reports that the income from any such tax could be used to support households struggling with the cost of living crisis, including in Scotland. (S6O-03155)

I think that it is the Government’s responsibility to answer questions. [Interruption.] Does the minister think that it will be a disappointment for people, but possibly not a surprise, that the Scottish National Party and Green Government has placed itself firmly behind the oil and gas giants on the issue, rather than behind working people?

The policy could create funds to support households that are struggling with the cost of living, but the SNP would rather protect the eye-watering excess profits of those at the very top. Why does the minister think that her party is more aligned with Douglas Ross and the Scottish Conservatives on the issue than with the working people of Scotland?

That is helpful. The next point that I want to make is about the 200m radius. Witnesses have discussed whether operators should be able to increase the size of zones proportionately. There has also been discussion about whether it should be possible to reduce their size. Do you have a view on that?

Some human rights organisations have suggested that operators should have to ensure that the balance is correct and that they should take evidence from staff if there is a continuing impact. How would it play out in the future if operators had to continue to speak to staff and assess the legislation’s impact?

I want to come back to human rights. I value the views that you have given us so far, which have really come through in the questioning.

It is important that we get the balance right for people. Am I right in saying that you feel that the bill provides a proportionate balance between the rights of people to express themselves and protection of people who are accessing healthcare? Would you say that the bill sets that out in a fair way?

That is helpful. Thank you very much.

I thank Emma Harper for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank everyone for their contributions, which have been interesting to listen to.

Like other parties, Scottish Labour supports the aims and objectives of eating disorder awareness week, which, as we have heard, was held from 26 February to 3 March. This year, there was a particular focus on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, which, as we have heard, is more commonly known as ARFID. The condition is characterised by a person avoiding certain foods, restricting the overall amount eaten, or perhaps both. It can affect someone of any age, and occurs in children, teenagers and adults. As we heard in the previous contribution, people with ARFID may lose weight or have low weight, but that is not one of the criteria. It can occur when people have no necessity to think about their weight.

As we have heard, eating disorders are not uncommon. One in 50 people in Scotland and the wider UK is affected by them. We know that, tragically, their impact can be life changing for the individual and their family and friends, and, sadly, it can sometimes be fatal. It is good that, at times, the chamber focuses specifically on eating disorders. I know that many members who are here this evening and, according to my research, other members frequently put questions to the Government on the issue. It is right that we should do that.

Today, we are focusing on the experience of a condition that we know very little about. In my reflections before the debate, I remembered that, last year, we were able to produce statistics that told us that one in four people who experience eating disorders is a man. One in five of those men reported that they struggled to talk about the issue. It is different this year, in that we are talking about a little-known condition; it is unclear how many people are affected. That is important. We need to raise issues in the chamber that people are unaware of and are perhaps not being treated for.

My first indication about the disorder was when I caught the end of a television programme. A mother was talking about how she had been quite frantic, trying to get a diagnosis. Although her GP was kind and trying to be helpful, she felt dismissed. It was quite shocking to hear that, but it reminds us that, although eating disorders are prominent and serious, there can continue to be a taboo attached to them, particularly when people have a condition that is difficult to diagnose, difficult to discuss and difficult for health professionals to understand.

I thank Beat for its helpful website, which has already been mentioned. I refer members to it, because it tells us a bit about the condition. We have heard quotes about what it feels like for people suffering from the condition, and Elena Whitham very helpfully told us what it was like to be a family member.

It is essential that we, as MSPs, take seriously our role in raising awareness, fighting for funding for research and scrutinising the Government in delivering services. That is why it is important that we bring a debate like this to the chamber and that we have the minister here to respond. I look forward to the minister’s remarks on the direction of the eating disorders plan in Scotland.

I recognise that fundraising is part of the way that the hospice sector promotes its cause and makes sure that people are aware of the sensitive issues surrounding it. I also think that that should not detract from the fact that we should discuss how we make the sector sustainable and how we make sure that funding is available, particularly as the need for such resources increases. The member and another colleague made points about that. In this place of power, we have to take responsibility for that.

I have said this before, but it is the only way I know how to say it in order to express my feelings: everyone deserves as pain free and as peaceful a death as possible, surrounded by those who love them, in a place that comforts them and in which the choice is theirs. We can all agree that, at some point, we will be touched by the death of a loved one. Should that loved one need end-of-life care over a period of time—palliative care—we would all wish it to be provided in the best way possible, by trained and sensitive care staff who have the knowledge, time and training that are needed to provide support for the physical deterioration as well as the emotional needs of our loved ones and their wider family.

If the chamber will bear with me, I will take the opportunity to mention a meeting that Paul Sweeney and I had with Brain Tumour Research. Among the issues that it raised with us was the impact of a diagnosis on a person’s family and their wider friend network. The diagnosis is often given to young people, including young women who have their lives ahead of them and have families. I thank Theo and Thomas for coming to the Parliament and for talking to us about the important issue of how we support people emotionally as well as the wider way in which we support research into very serious conditions that can cause end of life. It is heartening that Marie Curie is there. As we have said many times in the chamber, we support the hospice care-at-home teams and its two hospices.

I recognise that I am running out of time. I wanted to mention inequalities, but they have already been touched on. I simply cannot accept that someone who is dying cannot get the care and comfort that they deserve. In a time of need such as the end of life, surely we must all be looking to find solutions to provide all the care and comfort that are necessary. I know that the daffodil appeal helps to achieve that aim.

I thank the clerks and members for their participation in the process. The establishment of a national care service gives the Parliament the chance to be bold, ambitious and innovative. Members should take seriously that opportunity and the responsibility that comes with it, and act in a way that our constituents would expect: that is, to read the report, act with conscience and truly decide whether the bill should progress to the next stage.

I am extremely disappointed by the Government’s approach to the progression of social care—and definitely by its approach to the progression of the national care service. I am disappointed in its unwillingness to co-operate and its inability to work with people to enhance what is a crucial piece of legislation. The minister’s contribution at the start of the debate is not based on the reality of the past 10 years.

When it was clear that the bill was not ready to proceed—a view that I am sure was held by many SNP members on the committee—the Scottish Government pushed those members to carry on and progress the bill. Again, last night, it pushed its members to vote against a sensible proposal to refer the bill back to the committee. The contribution from Ivan McKee shows that some people on the committee are considering the points in hand. If the bill moves to stage 2, I hope that we can work together. I mean that genuinely.

The opportunity to improve the bill—to extend stage 1 and to take more time—was made available to the committee by Labour members. The report confirms that. However, sadly, the SNP and Green members did not take that opportunity. The report that they pushed through includes a Scottish Government and COSLA deal that was not properly scrutinised, agrees general principles that have changed significantly from those that were originally set out, and is absolutely laden with requests for more evidence and further information. Anyone who reads the report will see that.

Suggestions that the report, or the evidence in it, portrays a positive outlook on the Government’s approach is absolutely absurd. Trade unions, third sector organisations, carers and those who receive care came to committee, and to members individually, to express serious concerns about the way in which the bill was progressing, its framework nature and the lack of clarity about things that could, ultimately, be done now, but the SNP ignored them and kept pushing on anyway.

Roz Foyer, in speaking about the commissioning service that the bill proposes to set up, said:

“Our fear is that the sort of commissioning system that is being set up will neither address nor take forward fair work and collective bargaining issues in a way that gives us any surety”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 15 November 2022; c 35.]

Indeed, after the Government took many steps that ignored the co-design process, Rachel Cackett of the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland summed up well the feeling that many hold, when she said:

“there is not, in my view, a great sense that there is a clear connection between what is being heard and what is being delivered through the bill.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 31 October 2023; c 31.]

Those are quotes from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the CCPS. If the Government is not listening to them, many will be asking who it is actually listening to.

The Government has been irresponsible at a time of critical importance, and it has played games with a crucial bill. Labour has been calling for a national care service for years, because if that is delivered properly, it will deliver the much-needed parity between health and social care, and it will deliver for workers, carers and service users. However, the Scottish Government, if it continues in its current direction, will make that proper and effective delivery highly unlikely. It is certainly not clear in the bill how the Government will deliver on those aims.

The Scottish Government would have the public believe that in order to deliver Anne’s law, for example, we need a national care service, in contrast to the view of those of us who are fighting to improve the bill in order to deliver on its full potential. The Government’s view could not be further from the reality. It is a Government that has a distant relationship with delivery, and which has sat on its hands rather than deliver key policies. Anne’s law could be delivered—I ask the minister to address the question that my colleague Monica Lennon raised and to be clear that the Government will seek to ensure that Anne’s law is considered in other legislation as soon as possible. That would be supported by members on all sides of the chamber.

Throughout the committee process, my colleague Paul Sweeney and I called for an expert advisory board—something that is not uncommon—but the SNP rejected that suggestion. We called on the Government to bring forward its amendments before the conclusion of stage 1 to ensure that proper scrutiny could take place, but that was rejected by the SNP. We called for the bill to be referred back to committee after third sector organisations, trade unions and many other stakeholders said that it was not clear, but that, too, was rejected by the SNP.

Despite the minister’s warm words, the SNP does not seem to be standing up for care in Scotland—in fact, it is standing in the way. As the stage 1 report makes clear, the SNP’s stubborn approach has proved exactly that.

It is with great regret, for the reasons that I have outlined, that I will not support the bill in its current form at stage 1.