Hansard

I am surprised that the question has been asked why we are having this debate. It is more than five months since the Executive published a major, long-awaited policy document on one of the major public health challenges of our time. It is absolutely right and proper that we have the opportunity to debate and discuss that and to reflect on where we are and where we go from here. I will use my few minutes to do just that.

Last week, I attended one of the choices for life roadshows organised by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which was a remarkable event. More than 2,500 primary 7 children were at Ingliston that day; the day before, there had been more than 4,000. Throughout the country, in the seven or eight other roadshows that had taken place, thousands more youngsters had participated in that powerful initiative, which was as entertaining as it was educational.

Without doubt, the most powerful part of the day, which combined bands, videos, quizzes and a host of other things, was a hard-hitting dramatisation by PACE—the Paisley-based youth theatre group. It portrayed the lives of three teenagers growing up and wrestling with the dilemmas of adolescence, not least whether to take drugs. Respect, identity and peer-group pressure were just some of the themes running through that amazing drama.

Why am I talking about a drugs education event in a sexual health debate? As I sat through the event, I could not help but consider where we are now in the public policy debate on drugs as distinct from where we are with sexual health. I will make comparisons. There is the obvious one that I am not aware of our having the equivalent set of roadshows on sexual health for thousands of youngsters throughout the country, although perhaps the minister has plans for something of that nature.

I suggest that there are marked philosophical differences. On drugs, we have long since dispensed with the just say no approach, not because we do not want youngsters to say no—far from it—but because we recognise that such an approach is simply not effective. Yet in sexual health, calls for abstinence-based programmes that tell youngsters to just say no still regularly punctuate and influence debate, policy and, often, the language that is used in the area. On drugs, we are now giving youngsters more information than ever before in the hope that it will discourage them from taking drugs. Yet when we talk about enhancing sex education and giving youngsters more information on sexual health, it is frequently suggested that we are somehow encouraging them to have sex.

Central to the narrative and practice of drugs policy and education is the language of choice—hence choices for life. We recognise and respect the fact that the young and the old must make choices for themselves, and we are working to equip people with the knowledge and confidence to make informed choices. However, the debate on sexual health often still lapses into being judgmental or prescriptive. We often struggle with the language of choice and sometimes fear that such language may be construed as supporting promiscuity, or as being amoral or even immoral. I accept that drugs and sex are not directly parallel issues, but I contend that our society has not yet developed the mature and pragmatic approach to sexual health that we have developed in other areas of public policy and towards lifestyle choices—in respect of drugs, for example. I firmly believe that unless and until such an approach is developed, the step change in practice and ultimately in health that is desperately needed will not be delivered. Like other members, I welcome the publication of the strategy, the debate and the gradual progress that is being made, but it is important that we stop and reflect on how far we still have to go in order to debate the issue fully, let alone to act effectively.

Why do we continue to struggle with the issue of sexual health? Why did the production of the strategy take so long? Why did the debate outside, if not inside, the chamber sometimes prove to be so controversial? Embarrassment is an issue. We are comfortable talking about statistics for sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies, but all of us—politicians and others in Scottish society—still wriggle and blush when we have to talk more about the issues, such as sex and relationships, that sit behind the numbers. There is an irony. We live in a society in which we are bombarded with graphic sexual imagery every day, but we struggle to have grown-up discussions about sex and relationships. We must overcome our embarrassment. A recent survey showed that embarrassment is one of the biggest barriers to young people seeking help with or advice about their sexual health. As politicians, we must play our part to dispense with that discomfort. If we are embarrassed by the subject, we can hardly expect others not to be embarrassed by it.

There is another reason why the debate can be jaggy—it takes us to the heart of the moral maze, which is a difficult and sometimes uncomfortable place to be. I cannot possibly do justice to the complex issues that are involved in the little time that remains, but suffice to say that it has been suggested that people who work in the field are value free. I know of no one—no individual, professional or parent—who approaches the issues of sex, sexuality or sexual health in a value-free way, but I would argue that the values of tolerance and respect are every bit as relevant in the debate as any moral absolutes.

Earlier, I spoke of pragmatism in drugs policy and education. Pragmatism has been successful in the past in fighting HIV/AIDS in Edinburgh and it will be effective in the future. People must be prepared to do things that work and to use the evidence that is available.

Since devolution, there have been several heated debates on sex and sexuality in Scotland, which have often generated more heat than light. If we are to foster a climate of informed debate and develop effective public policy, that must change. I hope that tolerance and respect will be our watchwords and that we will enable Scots throughout the land to make informed choices.