Chamber and committees

In the recent independent review of Creative Scotland, UK Music highlighted that Scotland’s music sector generates more than £857 million and sustains more than 7,000 jobs. However, UK Music stressed that funding volatility threatens grass-roots talent, touring and economic sustainability.

I appreciate and understand budgetary pressures. However, how will the cabinet secretary ensure that Creative Scotland delivers strategic, predictable and resilient investment, in particular for emerging artists, self-releasing labels and rural organisations, through 2025-26 and beyond?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted no.

The latest Scottish Chambers of Commerce quarterly economic indicator survey, which was published this morning, shows that seven out of 10 Scottish firms continue to struggle with higher employment costs and have concerns about further potential adverse policies from the United Kingdom Labour Government. Has the Scottish Government had the chance to assess the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on employers in Scotland—a tax on Scottish businesses—and if so, what are its findings?

To ask the Scottish Government on what basis it will assess the contribution of Scotland’s performing arts organisations in advance of the next budget. (S6O-04937)

I completely agree that the calibre of our national performing companies is excellent. However, I am aware that part of the remit of our Finance and Public Administration Committee is to assess fiscal sustainability, and that measure must surely be applied to our national performing arts organisations. I would even go as far as to consider the gross value added contribution of each of them, because I was struck by the positive evidence from Alistair Mackie of the Royal Scottish National Orchestra in last week’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. If the cabinet secretary agrees with that, would he see a role for the Finance and Public Administration Committee in focusing on fiscal sustainability?

I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the debate to the chamber. I apologise to members, as I have to leave earlier than the conclusion of the debate.

I have to say that it fills me with despair to be speaking again in a debate to fight for women’s rights. I have never sought to be a victim, and I have always been wary of using traumatic events in my life to draw attention to myself, yet I feel the lack of action from the Scottish Government deeply personally.

Since I had to stand up and speak about this issue having barely just been elected in 2021, and then had to vote against the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill due to the casual introduction of self-identification without any consideration of safeguarding, I have met many women with a similar story to my own.

My early-years trauma has left me with a compelling need to feel safe, not just to be safe. I have a visceral fear of the physicality of men when encountering them in unexpected places—places where I thought that I could feel safe. That visceral fear, when it kicks in, leads straight to a trauma response, which includes acute anxiety, inflammation, tingling across my face and mouth, extreme tiredness and so on. That is how I live my life.

Therefore, having to continually stress the need for protected safe places and for dignity, safety and privacy is constantly re-triggering. Having to continually press the Scottish Government to do the right thing is constantly re-triggering. Yet, given the fact that 89 per cent of those reporting serious sexual assaults in Scotland are women, I am not alone—I am actually fairly typical.

In the chamber, there are women similar to me—both MSPs and members of the public watching the debate—whose direct life experience of being in the sex class of female has subjected them, as it has subjected me, to such experiences.

I have been so wary of ever mentioning myself, merely noting that I must speak for those who cannot be heard. However, I press myself to continue to do so, as the Scottish Government has failed to engage with women who have been raped or sexually assaulted. It failed to do so when the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee was looking at the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill; it failed to speak with For Women Scotland; and it is not listening still.

Scottish women simply want their legal rights back. They do not want to take rights away from anyone else, and they want their Government to do the right thing.

I am tired of being stuck in a groundhog day loop in which the Scottish Government states that it

“accepts the result of the Supreme Court judgement”

and insists that it will definitely do something at some point—what that something is, and the timeframe, are never defined—and when it is asked again, it repeats the lines, and so on.

Decision theory tells us that not making a decision is a decision in and of itself. Rather than face the consequences of acting on the Supreme Court judgment, the Scottish Government has gamed that it would rather live with the consequences of not acting on it, and those consequences are the continued denial of women’s rights. What does that say to me? What does it say to 51 per cent of the Scottish population?

Public money is really tight, yet there always appears to be money to contest women’s rights. I find it incredible that the Scottish Government is going to go head to head with For Women Scotland all over again, despite the Supreme Court judgment. That is surely the very definition of madness.

It seems ironic that, today, we saw the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which really recognises the impact of trauma on women. I hope that sensible heads start to prevail and that the Scottish Government understands why safety, dignity and privacy are vital to women like me.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Scotland’s population being around 5.5 million and the reported need to expand the housing sector capacity, whether it will provide an update on what targeted support it is providing to address the reported decline in small and medium-sized home builders. (S6O-04925)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her full reply and agree that all steps must be taken to support SME house builders, particularly around planning and certainty over access to finance. House building is part of the picture to address pent-up demand; another part is retaining existing stock. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s recent warmth to the removal of rent caps to mid-market rent and build to rent, but will she extend that to all types of provisions, such as private landlords, or, as a minimum, will she allow rent rises between tenancies? My concern is that the Government could be at risk of legal action in differential treatment or, even worse, mass exit, which would inadvertently exacerbate the current undersupply of housing stock.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with United Kingdom Government ministers regarding the potential impact on the Scottish economy of recent developments with the Grangemouth cluster. (S6O-04873)

The cabinet secretary has alluded to concerns that are increasingly being raised about contagion as a result of the impact of UK Government policies on the energy sector. My immediate concerns are the vital chemical cluster around Grangemouth, but I am also concerned about the throughput of the Forties pipeline and, therefore, ultimate viability. It is also clear that the energy profit levy is biting investment hard, and I find it staggering that there is no sign of the promised £200 million—paltry though that may be—from the UK Government. I know that discussions have been had, but is the cabinet secretary any clearer on whether the UK Government plans to follow through on the promises that have been made and, consequently, on timescales?