Seòmar agus comataidhean

When I originally thought about speaking on this group, I wanted to speak only to my colleague Pauline McNeill’s amendment. However, having listened very carefully to the debate, I cannot not speak about some of the points raised in some of the very considered speeches that have been made. I obviously cannot mention everyone, but I appreciate the effort that people have put into speaking on this group.

In particular, I want to speak about my colleague Jackie Baillie’s contribution, during which she spoke about legislators needing to ensure that the public have confidence in what we have done and clarity on the legal obligations in the Equality Act 2010, particularly for public bodies, in relation to both women and transgender people—other members mentioned that, too.

Originally, I wanted to say that although we have talked a great deal about obtaining a GRC, in amendment 117, Pauline McNeill—like others, of course—quite rightly highlights the extent to which a GRC affects rights obtained under the 2010 act. That has been the crux of much of the opposition to the bill as it has gone through. Many people have asked and are worrying about what will become of the rights and freedoms of women, especially in settings of refuge and treatment.

The Equality Act 2010 made clear that the delivery of single-sex services, when proportionate and legitimate, is protected, but the bill seems to cloud that understanding, as we have heard. That outcome benefits no one and gives no public confidence.

As members have evidenced and clarified during the debate, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the Government has amended the 2004 act to the extent that clarity on the operation of the 2010 act is necessary. I am not going to go back over those arguments, because they were made very well by others.

I thank the member very much for that intervention, and I know that he has asked other members the same question. Let me be absolutely clear that I have come to the chamber today to go through all the amendments. I have spent hours and hours here because this is an important debate. I will consider every amendment, and I thank members who have indicated which ones they will support and which they will not. I have considered every amendment and will continue to do that.

I want to put on record that I am concerned that some believe that even asking questions about these matters is, in itself, offensive, but I am glad that we have had this debate. I thank members for being able to discuss them, as that has been very important for public confidence.

I argue that the reason why these matters keep being discussed and debated is precisely because we do not have clear answers in relation to provision, so we must amend the bill to reflect those interests. I ask members to support amendments that contribute to that.

I agree with my colleague Pauline McNeill’s interpretation that it is unclear whether the bill affects the Equality Act 2010 or its operation. Others have made that point very well.

It is important that we approve some guidance in this Parliament and I would expect that to be done as part of amendments to the bill.

What is the key barrier to that? All the evidence that we heard from the trade unions, professional organisations and some of the third sector is that that should be happening. I am unclear what the key barrier is that the Government is finding.

I start by saying that pausing the bill would not mean pausing some of the urgent changes that are needed in social care. We have plenty of evidence and quotes from professional organisations, trade unions and third sector organisations that say that we can do a lot now.

My question is on sectoral collective bargaining. Has the Government considered that or had any advice on it, and will you commit to talking to the trade unions now about it? Throughout the evidence sessions—you mentioned it yourself, minister—we have heard that we can sort out the pay, terms and conditions of social work staff, and that that would make the biggest possible difference to provision of the care and support that individuals need in their day-to-day lives.

I am particularly interested in fair work. We have heard clearly in evidence from people who have come to the committee that so much could be done now. Will you commit to looking at what has been achieved so far and push forward with that without having to rely on the bill?

My question is quite specific and is on an issue that was raised by Alison Kerr of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, Fanchea Kelly of Blackwood Homes and Care, and Henry Simmons from Alzheimer Scotland. It is about the rights of people to have rehabilitation as part of the national care service. Those experienced people indicated that they thought that that should be in the bill. Will the minister commit to considering that?

It has been answered.

No—that is perfect. Thank you.

With reference to my colleague Claire Baker’s amendment 94, I feel that it is important to raise the serious concerns that many parents have raised with me, and which young people have, regarding this section of the bill. That is especially the case considering how poor the current support for young people is in this country, despite the fact that they are perhaps the group in greatest need of support. It is essential that young people can access the same level of psychological and social support as any person before making such a decision, and I do not see that that support is available at all.

In amendment 94, my colleague quite rightly asks for a pause to this section of the bill. As she has highlighted clearly and very well, that would not prevent 16 or 17-year-olds from socially transitioning. I cannot think of many pieces of transformative legislation that would be passed before something as important as the Cass review had published its conclusions. Although the review is not focused specifically on NHS Scotland, it clearly has great relevance to Scotland, and we should have the opportunity to consider its findings before we change the age.

I will take an intervention from Emma Harper.