���˿���

I certainly welcome the approval of NPF4, and it is now about moving swiftly to adoption so that we can see a positive outcome from that for communities. NPF4 is one part of the development plan, but an important part. In addition to that, local place plans can now be brought forward by communities, setting out their aspirations for their places. That might help to give communities a bit more of a voice.

NPF4 is more directive in shaping places, with things such as the infrastructure-first approach and 20-minute neighbourhoods, for example, and the affordable housing contribution of at least 25 per cent can be increased or, indeed, decreased on the basis of local evidence. In most places, however, 25 per cent is seen as the floor and I cannot think of many places that would want to reduce that. They would have to have strong arguments to reduce that contribution.

NPF4 also contains proposed minimum all-tenure housing land requirements for each planning authority to meet the statutory requirement. I hope that that will mean that we can perhaps see more rapid development, particularly of affordable housing projects, in those areas. Also, the ambitions in “Housing to 2040” and the NPF are closely aligned, and there has had to be cross-consideration of both of those.

I think that the funding will be enough, but I guess, as with anything in this world, it will be only as good as how it is used in practice. We need to keep an eye on that to see what happens.

I hear what you say about the annual “he says, she says”, so it is important to spend a moment going through some of the detail. COSLA initially claimed that the settlement had increased by only £70 million. It is now using a figure of £38 million following confirmation that £32 million for teachers’ pay in 2021-22 had been subsumed within the teacher numbers funding. I guess that, in comparing with the previous year, it comes down to what you are comparing amounts with. The best like-for-like comparison is with available funding at this stage in the budgetary cycle. COSLA’s £38 million figure discounts funding for specific policy outcomes and does not reflect the £260.6 million for the 2022-23 pay that is now baselined. It is important that that is recognised.

Just because COSLA and local authorities already know about that baseline funding does not mean that it can or should be ignored. Again, it comes back to what you are including. It is additional funding to what they received in the previous budget and it supports the delivery of local services. You could argue that the vast bulk of local authorities’ spend, as with any public service, is pay, so I think that it is entirely fair to include that money. I guess that it comes down to what you do and do not include.

We maintain that it is factually correct to say that the local government settlement has increased by more than £570 million in cash terms. There is the additional spending power that is offered through the budget. We are preserving funding that was provided for the national insurance increase, despite its reversal by the UK Government, and offering full flexibility over council tax, including financial gains from the poundage freeze. In addition, the local visitor levy bill that will go to Parliament this year will give discretionary powers. There is an appetite to look at what else can be done around fiscal flexibility and other revenue-raising powers as we go on, albeit that that will not impact on the coming year’s budget. I am sure that, at some point, we might touch on things such as the fiscal framework and the new deal.

In short order, that is why there is a differing version of the budget: it depends what you include and what you do not. Not including pay is a bit of a stretch, so that is why we have included it, and that is the figure that we get to. Is that a good enough summary?

It is slightly more than £800 million. Again, to be blunt, that would require us to allocate not just every penny coming from the UK Government for all services; we would have had to find money in addition to that. It was an ask that was just impossible ever to meet. What could we do? We looked at the art of the possible. That is where the £570 million, which is a real-terms increase of £160.6 million, or 1.3 per cent, was found. That meant making some difficult decisions, not least on pay, and then baselining the pay. That money all has to come from somewhere. I hear what local government, in its various articulations, has said, but we have genuinely tried to do what we can within a very tight fiscal environment.

Some of the information will involve very small numbers, so it would be very difficult to collect. In addition, some of the information in question is just not collected, so it would be disproportionate to set up whole new systems to collect that information. Where possible, we would want to base data on quality information that is already collected.

As I said, I am happy to continue discussions in particular areas, but any such requirement must be proportionate.

Can I just deal with the other amendments first?

The explanation that I gave to Rachael Hamilton on the position of the 2004 act answers Pauline McNeill’s point. The 2004 act is not changed in terms of the effect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Under the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment sit alongside one another.

Finally—I am sorry if I have missed some points—Brian Whittle made a point about the guidance—

As I have said, I met the Faith & Belief Forum, which is a forum of religious leaders across many faiths, and in that discussion, some expressed support for the bill and some expressed the view that they did not support it. It was a free and frank discussion. If the member wants, I can say who was at the forum; if they are happy for the information to be shared, I am happy to say which organisations I met.

On Foysol Choudhury’s other point, the matter of choice comes under the charter of patient rights and responsibilities, which says that patients will have a choice. However, that will clearly depend on the availability of a female doctor, and in some specialties, that might not be possible. There is always a “where possible” caveat, for all the reasons that we have talked about.

At the end of my remarks, I should have put on record that there has been some further consideration of the use of the word “connected”, which needs to be clarified. Is Jamie Greene willing to work with us ahead of stage 3 on the final wording, as it may require additional tweaking? Is he happy to do that?

Well, okay.

As Brian Whittle has rightly said, the policies have to be set by each governing body, because each sport is different and each governing body will take an approach that is appropriate to the sport concerned. We have seen that in some of the announcements that governing bodies have made.

I am not clear that the information that we are talking about is readily obtainable, but I accept that Brian Whittle says otherwise. Therefore, although I will not support amendment 1, I am happy to have further discussions with him about whether there is something that we could capture within the wider review criteria that we will bring forward at stage 3. I hope that he will be content with that.

Amendment 76 would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a report on a review of the impact of the legislation on patients

“where knowledge of the biological sex of health professionals is required, including on religious grounds.”

I should say that I met a range of religious leaders and bodies as part of the Faith & Belief Forum as part of the consultation on the bill.

The Scottish Government expects everyone to be treated fairly and equally and with respect when seeking healthcare. National health service staff make every effort to ensure that the privacy and dignity of all patients are maintained in Scottish hospitals and healthcare more widely.

“The Charter of Patient Rights and Responsibilities” says that the patient’s

“needs, preferences, culture, beliefs, values and level of understanding will be taken into account and respected when using NHS services”

and that, when considering those preferences, the health board

“must also consider the rights of other patients, medical opinion, and the most efficient way to use NHS resources.”

In short, the NHS will try to meet people’s needs but, as Pam Gosal herself recognised, it can do so only where possible. We can all think of situations—not least an emergency situation—in which, essentially, it might have to be the presenting doctor who has to intervene.

It is not clear how the information that Pam Gosal sets out in her amendment could be collected or published, or how the bill would impact on that area. Therefore, I do not support her amendment.

Claire Baker is correct: employers take cognisance of employment law and the 2010 act. The employer has a balance of rights to consider with regard to the rights of patients to request whom they want and the rights and protection of staff working in their organisation and, in that respect, they would draw on equality law under the 2010 act and other employment legislation. You could imagine a scenario in which a patient refused to accept care from someone, because they were from a different minority group, and it would then be for the employer to decide what was proportionate and acceptable in the circumstances.