Seòmar agus comataidhean

In a month when the Government is using parliamentary time to try to spin out as many good news stories as possible, it is surprising that it has, today, chosen to defend its record on education and, in particular, vocational and technical qualifications. As other members have indicated, we can all pick out good news stories, but our job in this place is to look at the broad picture across Scotland and be real about what is actually happening for young people.

I have some more real stories. Earlier this month, I met striking teachers from Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders who wanted to make it clear to us, as their representatives, that subject choice is narrowing—and narrowing quickly. One teacher told me that, because subject choice is so limited in rural areas, her sons cannot study the subjects that will allow them to pursue the future that they wish to have. It is her sons who are having to adapt and not the Government.

Of course Scottish Labour supports the expansion of vocational and technical training, but the reality on the ground in Scotland is that this Government is failing to get the basic things right. It is no longer the case that only choice is limited; there is now a limiting of opportunity. Where someone lives and the background that they come from now dictates their future when it comes to their health, their access to public services and definitely their education. That is SNP Scotland. That is the record of the past 15 years.

The importance of the role that colleges play in the delivery of vocational and technical training cannot be overstated, as other members have said. However, as my colleague Michael Marra mentioned, there is confusion over how colleges can spend their budget allocation for 2023-24—confusion that, again, has arisen as a result of a lack of ministerial direction. That is an important point: colleges need direction and leadership. Any progress that is made on vocational qualifications will undoubtedly be put at risk by the lack of direction provided to the college sector from the Government. That is a risk that Scottish Labour is absolutely not willing to take, and it should be the same for Government ministers, who should address it. Therefore, as my colleagues have done, I encourage the Government to reach out to the college sector and provide such clarity quickly.

I suggest that it might be worth their while for the cabinet secretary and the minister to consider how the Scottish Government can utilise its relationship with NHS Education Scotland, which Ruth Maguire spoke about, to ensure that more health-related vocational training in that sector becomes available to our young people in the senior phase. I appreciate that Scottish vocational qualifications are already available in, for example, dental nursing, but the Scottish Government knows that it can—and should—go further. Many professions are looking for paths to vocational training, and the skilled team at NES could be a route to pursuing that. We are only too well aware of the challenges that our NHS and social care services face on recruitment and retention. Perhaps offering more courses that would encourage young people to consider careers in either health or care services would, in the long term, help us to fight such challenges. However, I repeat that the delivery of strong vocational and technical training must be widely and—which is important—equally spread. There cannot be a postcode lottery for people for whom such training is available and those for whom it is not. We can do better, and the point is that we must do so.

I do not want to contribute to the debate without mentioning the role of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—and the importance of encouraging women and girls to undertake vocational and technical training linked to STEM subjects.

In his recent address to the British Computer Society, the minister admitted that the proportion of digital technology roles held by women is less than a quarter and that a significant pay gap between women and their male counterparts still exists. Anyone who goes and reads the speech that he gave will be shocked by the gap. Therefore, although it is absolutely important that we encourage girls to study STEM subjects in school and to take up vocational training in the field, we must also make their future in that field more attractive. Entering a male-dominated field where men are paid more is not an attractive option, and so our approach to expanding vocational and technical training must include a multilayered approach to pay and future opportunities for young girls and women. Only by ensuring that there are equal opportunities and such career paths from the start, and throughout, will we see parity of esteem between academic and non-academic qualifications.

As other members have mentioned, for too long in Scotland there has been a failure to recognise the importance of vocational qualifications. We must see greater action in that area on tackling barriers related to geography, gender and income. The cabinet secretary was right to talk about positive outcomes, but honesty is absolutely crucial. This is not a time for the Government to stop and pat itself on the back. We have a very long way to go, and the challenges facing our education system on the Government’s watch are becoming greater. Genuine reform of the system for delivery of qualifications could provide opportunities for young people and long-term solutions that would address skill shortages in key areas.

Obviously, I defer to Audrey Nicoll’s understanding of the bill and her experience in the matter but, looking in, it appears to me that it will be confusing if that definition is not made clearer. Sometimes, as lawmakers, we have to stand up and be counted and actually define what we mean by things. If the public and law officers do not have confidence in what we define as public safety, it will definitely be unclear in going through the processes that will happen out there in the world, which will have a knock-on effect on the whole system.

With regard to removal of bail restrictions, we are in the unusual situation in which it is unclear whether that reform will make it easier for people who are accused of serial sexual offences—others have mentioned that—and domestic abuse to be out on bail. Reform must satisfy the victims of crime and the organisations that represent them; however, we have heard that there are concerns in that respect.

As I have said many times in the chamber, if we are to tackle the important work of legislating for this country, we must do it seriously and effectively. I have serious doubts about the bill, at this stage. Bad legislation is not good governance so, with my Labour Party colleagues, I think that there is a lot of work to be done on the bill before it can become legislation.

I, too, thank the committee for its work on the bill. I have never been on the Criminal Justice Committee, so I have found it interesting to take part in this debate.

It is interesting that, on reading the bill at stage 1, it looks like something that people could easily support. However, research shows that the bill has a lot of words and that there needs to be clarity around many of the issues, including resourcing, which the committee’s report talks about. I hope to draw out those points as I go through my speech.

As we have heard from other speakers today, Scotland has the highest remand rate in the entirety of Europe. Yet, based on what we can see at stage 1, there is nothing in the bill that directly addresses that fact. That is a problem.

I have a genuine concern that the Government has not adequately engaged on the matters that experts in the field raised during the committee stage 1 process. It seems to me that the Government does not understand that the best practice in many of the proposals in the bill is already incorporated, but resourcing is a major issue.

It was also interesting to me when a colleague brought it to my attention that many of the recommendations that were made in 2018 by the Justice Committee in the previous parliamentary session have not been realised. That point has been raised in interventions during this debate, as well.

What is required, as is so often the case, is increased financial support for the justice system, rather than piecemeal reform that satisfies no one. The cabinet secretary said that throughcare is not consistent. In my view, throughcare is not resourced. We need honesty around that.

We have a bill that, at stage 1, does not make it clear how it will address the issues that have been outlined by the Criminal Justice Committee and by people in the legal profession, in policing and in victim support organisations in the third sector. That point has been made by a number of members in the debate.

The bill does not provide the necessary funding, and the Government does not even acknowledge the funding that is necessary, although the committee obviously does.

There is clearly a need for reform, based on what experts have told us, but the proposals that are set out in the bill seem to have very unclear statistical data to support the conclusions. I accept that—as others have mentioned—it appears to be hard to come by data on how many people are on remand, and more so in respect of data on who they are, why they are on remand and how that came about. We have had acknowledgment that even the previous committee found such data difficult to find. However, I am keen to see there being greater emphasis on data to justify why the reforms are required to be in the bill, rather than their being addressed through non-legislative measures. Policy is better made when we truly understand matters, so that has been a frequent criticism of the bill.

Beyond that, it is completely unclear whether the bill will reduce the remand population, although surely that should be the key aim. We have all said that remand numbers are far too high. If the bill will not reduce remand numbers, it is difficult to justify to the public why the legislation is necessary. We have to provide measures with which we can assess whether the proposed policies work. Otherwise, the public will be quite right to question what we are doing.

As drafted, the bill would add a significant layer of bureaucracy, but Scottish Labour and others are not convinced that it would improve the situation, which is ultimately what we want to do, by addressing backlogs in remand and addressing the concerns of victims.

We know that half the people who are on remand do not end up with custodial sentences, but there is little in the bill to actively address that. The new bail test is focused on public safety, but as someone who is not on the Criminal Justice Committee, I say that it is poorly designed and will lead only to confusion and inconsistency. The lack of precision will have real-life consequences for a great many people. The lack of precision around the definition of “public safety” will have great consequences—not least for victims of crime, who are, as we know, so often failed by the justice system.

I thank my colleague Jackie Baillie for her on-going work on long Covid and for bringing this debate an international long Covid day to the chamber. I thank colleagues from across the chamber for their contributions, but in particular I want to mention the importance of my colleague Mark Griffin’s bill.

As we have heard, long Covid is, and will continue to be, one of the most challenging outcomes of the pandemic. It is a condition that debilitates, lacks a cure and lacks research and, sadly, it is one about which people still lack awareness. It is absolutely right that we mark international long Covid day—which, as we have heard, is tomorrow—and renew our commitment to all those in Scotland who are suffering as a result of the long-term impacts of the virus.

In the debate, yet again, colleagues across the chamber have warned the Scottish Government about the threat that long Covid poses. People suffering with long Covid have spoken to us as MSPs directly to highlight their concerns, and we have heard from members during discussions in the chamber and at other times in the Scottish Parliament. However, I am not surprised that their demands and requests have been met with insufficient actions. That is part of the reason why we keep trying to bring the issue to the chamber.

As members will know, I often raise issues on health inequalities. I feel that Jackie Baillie is right to note in her motion the importance of not creating such inequalities in patient outcomes. Last month, the Scottish Parliament information centre released research that highlights that

“As a proportion of the UK population, the prevalence of self-reported long COVID was greatest in ... people living in more deprived areas, those working in social care, those aged 16 years and over who were not working and not looking for work, and those with another activity-limiting health condition or disability.”

We are still behind on research, and the impacts of long Covid will become clearer as we progress. However, the Scottish Government has totally taken its eye off the ball on health inequalities, so it is absolutely critical that we are alert to what could be yet further such inequalities that will impact Scots from deprived areas.

Before I conclude, I am keen to pay tribute to the health and activity rehabilitation programme team that works as part of the health and social care partnerships in Ayrshire’s three local authority areas. On Friday, I was delighted to pay a visit to its base at the Lister centre in Kilmarnock to learn about the long Covid services that it will provide in the coming months to people living with the condition in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area.

Early on in the pandemic, the team identified the need to support its staff, which it did through an occupational health model. That has given the team a real advantage in recommending its service to lead on long Covid in Ayrshire. From my visit, it seems to me that clinical leadership and a respect for a multidisciplinary approach are key to the team’s achieving its outcomes. It has an equal approach across allied health professions, nurses, volunteers and support staff, and it does fantastic work in the community. I have no doubt that its long Covid provision can and will be a success.

As parliamentarians, we owe it to the staff of such services to ensure that funding is available and is uplifted whenever possible. I hope that the minister will address the funding issues that members from across the chamber have raised. As people look for support to help them to deal with breathlessness, fatigue, tiredness and other symptoms, we must be in a position to offer it.

I just want to support Alexander Stewart. If the Children and Young People’s Commissioner has indicated that there may be more that we can do, it would be useful to explore that to its end point.

That is a relevant point. We should raise that with the Government as something that it must make sure that it monitors in its cancer plans.

I support what members have said and I want to make the important point that, in the time that I have been in the Parliament, there have been a number of debates and committee discussions about the issue. Now, it is about us seeing what action is being taken. Getting that information from those organisations would be helpful and allow progression to the next stage, which is important for such urgent matters.

I declare an interest, as a registered landlord.

MSPs have stood up and stated on many occasions the absolute importance of keeping guards on trains, maintaining safe and regular buses and ensuring that transport hubs are sufficiently staffed for the benefit of all. Whether it is to ensure that the public are protected, to ensure that people with disabilities can get on and off safely or to warn of developing hazards, those calls all have a logical and necessary reason.

A key reason why those calls have been made so consistently is that we need to ensure that those who use trains, buses and boats feel safe and unthreatened while travelling. Of course, more often than not, when we speak of that we are, sadly, focusing on women. We still live in a world where women do not always feel safe when using public transport. As we have already heard, a survey by the Office for National Statistics suggests that nearly half of women in Britain feel unsafe using public transport alone after dark.

Whether cases involve catcalling or women being pestered or whether they go as far as all-out sexual assault, the number of cases where women have been made to feel isolated and exposed by the behaviour of men on public transport is concerningly high. We have all heard horror stories, today and at other times, or have experienced them ourselves. It is worryingly common that women’s complaints are not taken as seriously as they should be. It may no longer be socially acceptable to insinuate that a woman was at fault—as was regularly claimed when I was young—but there are still plenty of ways in which women’s concerns are diminished, while emphasis is put on women changing their behaviour instead of the men who carry out the harassment.

All women have been told at one time or another that they should not get on board this or that bus, or that, if they are travelling on a train at night, they should bring someone else with them. Although people who say that mean well, it belies the fact that, in 2023, we still accept that there are no-go areas for more than half of the population of the country. The implication is that men are born with an entitlement to roam and travel that women can enjoy only in the company of men they know. Some may scoff at the way in which I have characterised that, but it is absolutely true, and it is reinforced by the fact that men who harass women on public transport often simply get away with it. They get on with their day, oblivious to the damage that they have caused, and yet, for the woman, her right to feel free in public has been severely damaged. In some cases, women will never get on a particular bus or train again. Their life has been limited by the selfishness of others. We must not put up with that. We must all agree that the actions suggested in the report and in previous debates in the chamber require to be addressed urgently.

Like others, I was shocked to learn that, in a survey of its ScotRail-employed members last year, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers found that more than 80 per cent of ScotRail women workers had been subjected to violent or antisocial behaviour at work in the past year. Of those who had been subjected to those behaviours, 80 per cent were lone working at the time. That is absolutely shocking. Those workers should not have to put up with that sort of treatment. As a democracy and a functioning society, we simply cannot let that behaviour go on without treating it with the seriousness that it deserves. Further, and perhaps just as important, we should not be making decisions that only worsen the problem. It appears, at times, that we do so without thinking.

What can be done or, better put, what cuts should the Government not implement if it is to take the issue seriously? I was glad to hear the minister’s remarks about considering the points in the report, and I would like more information on that. Making cuts to ScotRail’s ticket office opening hours exacerbates the problem. Elderly passengers, in particular, still prefer to speak directly to someone when buying their tickets, and they often rely on the ticket office’s knowledge to plan their journey. Planning a journey is an important part of feeling safe, so that support is absolutely necessary. The ratio of people in our country who are past retirement age and who use public transport skews significantly towards women. Like so many other cuts that are made without thinking, the proposal to cut ticket office opening hours will disproportionately harm women.

As we have heard, cutting bus routes and leaving isolated stations and trains without sufficient supervision inevitably leaves many women in a vulnerable position. As my colleague Neil Bibby mentioned, the number of late night bus routes that are disappearing is very concerning, not only because those bus routes have gone but because of the number of women disproportionately affected because they often work in roles that finish after dark and have no other means to get home. We know that employers are often not sympathetic to those concerns.

Finally, we must keep guards on trains and adopt a zero tolerance approach to those who are caught harassing women—or indeed anyone—on public transport. If someone cannot use railways and roads with respect and decency, some limits should be put on their freedom and not on the freedom of the women who are being harassed.

In the interests of time, I will try not to repeat points that other members have made. As my colleague Paul Sweeney stated, Scottish Labour supports the aims and objectives of eating disorders awareness week 2023, with this year’s focus on eating disorders in men.

To better understand these complex mental illnesses and put gender stereotypes to bed, it is right that we applaud Beat for launching the UK’s biggest survey to date on men’s experiences with eating disorders. I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken on raising awareness and bringing people with lived experience together, and on advancing the care of people with eating disorders.

As we heard, the statistics are stark. I will not go over them again, but we know that, tragically, one in four people who experience an eating disorder are men, and one in five of those men report never having discussed those struggles, which is shocking. That acts as a reminder to us all that eating disorders are prominent and serious. Eating disorders still have a taboo around them that means that men in particular feel that they cannot speak out.

As Beat has indicated, it is essential that we take seriously our role as members in raising awareness, fighting for funding for research and scrutinising the Government in delivering the full implementation of the 2021 national review of eating disorder services, which includes 15 ambitious recommendations. Like other members, I would be interested to hear the minister’s response to the review. I hope that the minister will answer some of those points in his closing remarks, particularly the group’s conclusions from September 2022, which recommended a national eating disorder network. When will he oversee the implementation of those recommendations?

Furthermore, the 2021 national review of eating disorder services highlighted a lack of training and education on eating disorders for healthcare workers in Scotland. I spent many years working in the NHS as a dietician as part of the allied health professions team, so I know only too well the importance of raising awareness of those conditions and disorders and of training future healthcare professionals.

It is clear from members’ speeches that we all take the issue very seriously. The research work and contributions made by charities, experts and others are important, but there is more to do. With cross-party support, which we seem to have in the chamber today, we can work together and address the concerns of individuals, charities and others across the country. I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks on the issue.