Chamber and committees

On the basis that the Government will consider lodging an amendment, which I hope to support, at stage 3, I will not press amendment 147. However, I expect the Government’s amendment to address as much of the data collection as I have outlined. I do not think that there is any data outlined in amendment 147 that cannot be gathered. I look forward to trying to find an amendment that will be acceptable across the chamber, and, on that basis, I will not press my amendment today.

Amendment 147, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 148 moved—[Tess White].

Amendment 147 would require the Government to collect better data on gender recognition certificates and in relation to the legislation. It takes the best practice that I have been able to find from the Irish, Maltese and Victorian legislation and from the Ministry of Justice in relation to UK models, and it will ensure that future policy will be served by better evidence than will be found through the current drafting of the bill. On that basis, I encourage members to vote for amendment 147.

I move amendment 147.

I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said. I understand the various bits of regulation that might come to the committee, and I am under no illusions about the level of work that that could involve. However, in a bill such as this, something like that probably needs to have the level of scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure, as opposed to the negative procedure, which, in my short time in the Parliament, I have learned does not provide as much opportunity for scrutiny. I do not think that some of those aspects should be left to the negative procedure, so I do, I am afraid, press the amendment.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for taking an intervention. I appreciate that this is politics, which is why she sought to make that point as clearly as she just did. However, this is not a case of people lining up on a political basis. With amendment 37, I have set out that the Equality Act 2010—which, if we are going to raise politics, was written and brought in by a Labour Government—is relevant for this bill. It is particularly relevant, and we need to say so in this discussion because of the concerns out there in the real world and in the Parliament. That is why we are doing so.

There are a number of areas on which my colleague Rachael Hamilton and I will agree and vote in the same way, but that does not mean that I am lining up to support the Tories on anything—least of all on women’s rights. However, I can be absolutely clear that this is not about party-political allegiance, and it is not fair to suggest that. It is about trying to ensure that the rights of everyone in Scotland are protected in the way that was intended when the Labour Government brought in the act in 2010.

Thank you for allowing me to come back in. I just want to address a couple of issues that have been raised about my amendment 37. I do not share my colleague Jamie Greene’s view that the amendment is narrow; it is deliberately broad so that it takes into consideration all aspects of the Equality Act 2010. Every one of us around the table, regardless of the argument that we are pushing forward—such as Brian Whittle’s argument around women and trans people in sport—is keen to say that we support all the protected characteristics, including trans people. It is really important for us all to remember that because it sometimes gets a bit lost.

One of the reasons why my amendment is so broad is that I want the whole act to be read in and relevant. I do not think that we can pick it apart, in bits and pieces. It was written to allow groups of people to live in a society where we all have to live with one another. Sometimes, there are situations where we have to ask what one protected characteristic’s rights mean for another protected characteristic’s rights. We have discussed that a lot today, and I fear that pulling bits out of the act does not allow us to consider it in its entirety. My colleague Daniel Johnson talked earlier about the act’s ability to be context specific. That is really important, and it is why amendment 37 is so broad.

On the points about the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt”, members will be aware of the Pepper v Hart approach, which means that when a member lodges an amendment, they have the opportunity to provide clarity about why they are doing so. I hope that that is helpful.

The phrase “for the avoidance of doubt” is not without precedent, but it is rare; it was used previously in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. I thought that it would be an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the bill is read with the whole Equality Act 2010, representing, understanding and protecting the rights of all people covered by that act, in all the protected characteristics.

I appreciate having been given the opportunity to come back in to give an explanation of that. I hope that members find it helpful.

Can the cabinet secretary explain why that information cannot be gathered?

Thank you for that, Sheena. It echoes some of what Rachel Cackett said and paints a pretty grim picture of what is going on.

I want to ask Frank McKillop and Andrew Ewen about the experience of their members from a service user point of view as opposed to a provider point of view. Can you both say something about that and about what we need to do now rather than in the longer term?

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. I am pleased that you have referred to the fact that we cannot wait but need to take some measures now, and I am not at all surprised to hear that disabled people and their organisations are urging change as soon as possible. I remember being involved in asking the Scottish Government to address social care 15 years ago. To say that there has been incremental change since then is probably an understatement.

There are a number of problems right now. Disabled people are getting so few hours of care and support that they are having to choose between using those hours to go shopping, to pay their bills—with someone there to help them—or to have a shower. That is the reality that disabled people are facing right now. As regards carers who are working in the sector and living on poverty pay, the minister has mentioned that there have been two pay increases, but that has not been enough, and carers are leaving the sector to work in supermarkets instead, because the pay is better there. That is leaving people without the care and support that they need.

Which parts of the problems that I have just outlined is the minister going to address now, instead of waiting until the national care service is developed?

The problems that have been outlined about postcode lotteries, and the need for a national approach to what people can expect, are not new, and I share the characterisation of those concerns. However, I do not share the Government’s characterisation of the situation as one in which it does not have any accountability or responsibility for that. People who receive services for social care, or people who work in social care, should not be expected to have to go to multiple doors and multiple agencies to get answers. I am afraid that, actually, the buck stops with the minister. I therefore hope that there will be a mechanism in the here and now, as well as in the future, for people to hold the system to account.

The other point that I want to make—after which I will get to my question—is that, although I am pleased that the issue of sectoral bargaining has been raised, there is nothing whatsoever in the bill about it. That is giving serious concerns to various people across the sector, such as trade unions and third sector organisations. It would therefore be good to hear that the bill will include a commitment to collective bargaining.

It might be self-evident, but are the retention and recruitment issues largely to do with pay and conditions, or are there other factors?