Chamber
Plenary, 14 Jan 2004
14 Jan 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Sexual Health and <br />Relationship Strategy
I, too, generally welcome the strategy and the debate. I ask members to welcome to the gallery some of the members of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sexual health.
As I am sure I have mentioned before in the chamber, in the time that I spent working in the sexual health field it was not far off a national joke that we had no sexual health strategy for Scotland. It was long perceived as necessary and overdue, so it was terrific to see the strategy. Nobody in the field will argue that such a strategy is not needed. It is also welcome to hear today the Minister for Health and Community Care broadly endorse the strategy. Some of his words in a previous debate, when a statement was made on the publication of the strategy, were perhaps ill chosen; they gave people cause for concern that the minister was trying to distance himself from the strategy, but I am pleased that the language around that changed today.
However, there remain areas where there is a substantial need to improve on what we have before us. As I am sure many members will mention, the main issue is resources. There is a broad feeling in the field that that is a key issue. There must be a commitment early on to specific and substantial resources. There is also the issue of the interpretation of some aspects of the strategy. Much of the strategy requires interpretation by the reader. Although the strategy places items on the agenda, it fails to prioritise them and could occlude the way forward.
Perhaps the implementation of the strategy needs to take account of the specifics as well as the broad sweep. I will mention a few of the specifics, then move on to some of the deeper-rooted issues. In particular, paragraph 4.20 places a requirement on national health service boards to work jointly with education departments, but the requirement is not reciprocal. I would be pleased to hear about any existing reciprocal requirements on education departments, but in the strategy as it stands the requirement is only in one direction, which could mean that successful joint working does not take place. There is also vagueness about how we should target specific groups, some of which have been mentioned. The field as a whole is aware that we have not quite got to grips with how we target the sexual health needs of, for example, older people, including newly single people.
The young remain an important target group because if we can influence attitudes to sexual health and well-being from an early age we can make substantial and lasting progress. There is a lack of clarity over how we can ensure that all Scotland's young people, whatever school they go to, have their rights to sexual health and relationships education upheld, especially given that we have no single curriculum. Religious schools are not the only issue here, but they are an important issue, which it would be wrong to duck. For example, how can a Catholic education service ensure that its lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils are at no disadvantage in sexual health and relationships education if the discredited theory that homosexuality is a disorder continues to be promoted? I am not arguing that there is no possible solution, but I have to ask the question because the answers are not yet apparent.
Engaging parents is also important, as Shona Robison has mentioned, but I believe strongly that the approach promoted by the anti-sex education group Not With My Child must be challenged. This agenda must not come to be dominated by the tiny minority of parents who oppose sex education in principle. We must also challenge some of David Davidson's comments. Perhaps one of his party colleagues will at some point explain to us whether he would give parents the right to veto resources that endorse equality on that basis. We do not give parents the right to veto anti-racist material; why should we give parents the right to veto material that is anti other forms of inequality?
As I am sure I have mentioned before in the chamber, in the time that I spent working in the sexual health field it was not far off a national joke that we had no sexual health strategy for Scotland. It was long perceived as necessary and overdue, so it was terrific to see the strategy. Nobody in the field will argue that such a strategy is not needed. It is also welcome to hear today the Minister for Health and Community Care broadly endorse the strategy. Some of his words in a previous debate, when a statement was made on the publication of the strategy, were perhaps ill chosen; they gave people cause for concern that the minister was trying to distance himself from the strategy, but I am pleased that the language around that changed today.
However, there remain areas where there is a substantial need to improve on what we have before us. As I am sure many members will mention, the main issue is resources. There is a broad feeling in the field that that is a key issue. There must be a commitment early on to specific and substantial resources. There is also the issue of the interpretation of some aspects of the strategy. Much of the strategy requires interpretation by the reader. Although the strategy places items on the agenda, it fails to prioritise them and could occlude the way forward.
Perhaps the implementation of the strategy needs to take account of the specifics as well as the broad sweep. I will mention a few of the specifics, then move on to some of the deeper-rooted issues. In particular, paragraph 4.20 places a requirement on national health service boards to work jointly with education departments, but the requirement is not reciprocal. I would be pleased to hear about any existing reciprocal requirements on education departments, but in the strategy as it stands the requirement is only in one direction, which could mean that successful joint working does not take place. There is also vagueness about how we should target specific groups, some of which have been mentioned. The field as a whole is aware that we have not quite got to grips with how we target the sexual health needs of, for example, older people, including newly single people.
The young remain an important target group because if we can influence attitudes to sexual health and well-being from an early age we can make substantial and lasting progress. There is a lack of clarity over how we can ensure that all Scotland's young people, whatever school they go to, have their rights to sexual health and relationships education upheld, especially given that we have no single curriculum. Religious schools are not the only issue here, but they are an important issue, which it would be wrong to duck. For example, how can a Catholic education service ensure that its lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils are at no disadvantage in sexual health and relationships education if the discredited theory that homosexuality is a disorder continues to be promoted? I am not arguing that there is no possible solution, but I have to ask the question because the answers are not yet apparent.
Engaging parents is also important, as Shona Robison has mentioned, but I believe strongly that the approach promoted by the anti-sex education group Not With My Child must be challenged. This agenda must not come to be dominated by the tiny minority of parents who oppose sex education in principle. We must also challenge some of David Davidson's comments. Perhaps one of his party colleagues will at some point explain to us whether he would give parents the right to veto resources that endorse equality on that basis. We do not give parents the right to veto anti-racist material; why should we give parents the right to veto material that is anti other forms of inequality?
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on the subject of developing a sexual health and relationship strategy for Scotland.
The Minister for Health and Community Care (Malcolm Chisholm):
Lab
I welcome this debate and the opportunity that it provides for members to contribute to the development of a national sexual health and relationship strategy...
Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the healthy respect project, part of which is in my constituency. Will the minister give an undertaking that funding will be available long enough ...
Malcolm Chisholm:
Lab
First, funding is available for the continuation of healthy respect. Secondly, it is being evaluated. That is important and was always part of the idea of th...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by paying tribute to the expert group's work in producing the report. The incidence of sexually transmitted infections continues to increase in Scotl...
Malcolm Chisholm:
Lab
I do not know whether Shona Robison was listening to my speech, but I made it absolutely clear—I did this intentionally in view of the allegations that are b...
Shona Robison:
SNP
I will come on to say a little bit more about that. The minister has tried to distance himself from the expert group, because he obviously wants to decide wh...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I join the minister in thanking the expert group for the work that it has done, albeit under the direction of the minister. I agree with one thing that the m...
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member acknowledge that we must trust the teachers who work with youngsters? The idea that only parents can work with their children is nonsense. We...
Mr Davidson:
Con
Let me reassure the member that I said that parents should be able to approve the materials that are used in schools and the type of education that is delive...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
This is an unusual debate, in that, instead of addressing a specific motion that requires a decision, we are straightforwardly examining the issues, as we do...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
I, too, generally welcome the strategy and the debate. I ask members to welcome to the gallery some of the members of the cross-party group in the Scottish P...
Mr Davidson:
Con
I probably did not express myself very clearly. What I am saying is that parental responsibility means parents being responsible for educating children for w...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
It was certainly implied that parents should be allowed to veto resources. At heart, we must endorse the sex-positive approach. Sadly, however, we live in a ...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
I am not sure how to follow Green theories on lust, but I will try my best.It may be an unfortunate coincidence that Glasgow's clinic for the treatment of se...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am pleased to take part in this discursive debate. The first of the issues that I want to touch on is probably the most obvious—the reduction in the number...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
Does the member agree that there is a danger of hypocrisy on this issue? Perhaps some of the most titillating images and experiences are to be found in the m...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I share that view. In programmes such as "Top of the Pops", some of the camera angles leave little to the imagination. However, "Top of the Pops" is on at 7 ...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
Does the member accept that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the expert panel to include a representative who could reflect the broad range of paren...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
With regard to practicalities, perhaps a questionnaire could have been sent to parents who wished to take part, to elicit data on their views without—
Patrick Harvie:
Green
It is an expert panel.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I know that it is an expert panel. However, why are parents not considered to be experts in their own way? There is a range of opinion among experts in any f...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I am delighted to speak in the debate and to be able to raise an issue about which I take every opportunity to speak—low fertility rates in Scotland. The reg...
Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome today's debate and the publication of the draft sexual health strategy, which is an important milestone. Like other members, I welcome the strategy...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
It is a pleasure to follow Susan Deacon, who has been a consistent and passionate advocate on the issue and who does credit to the debate.I will focus my rem...
Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
I welcome the speeches that have been made, with the exception of one or two. David Davidson is no longer in the chamber, but I will come back to him later.I...
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):
Lab
Women of my age or my generation will recall the sexual advice that they received when they reached a particular age. We got a pack that contained Dr White's...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
I welcome the tone of Cathy Peattie's speech. I cannot help recalling a time some years ago when I visited the home of the late Nicholas Fairbairn and saw wh...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
The proposal to the Scottish Executive states:"NHS Boards have a duty to ensure that all young people have easy, open and confidential access to holistic hea...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
I accept the principle that there should be easy, open and effective access to health services. This afternoon, however, I am dealing with education, a subje...