Chamber and committees

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber and I welcome action mesothelioma day 2026, which will be marked on 3 July.

I am pleased, in the years that I have been in Parliament, to have played my part in joining Marie McNair and other members to raise awareness of this cruel condition and to call for further research and for the condition to be properly understood as an industrial injury.

As the motion highlights, it is important to recognise the role of grass-roots activism in seeking justice for victims. It is often grass-roots campaigns that really turn the dial on these issues, and it is great to welcome those people to the public gallery again this year.

I support the Cape must pay campaign, which calls on the former asbestos manufacturer Cape plc, now Altrad, to donate £10 million to mesothelioma research. As my colleague Jackie Baillie said, that is a small amount to expect. Such companies and the state owe a great deal to individuals, families and communities. We need that research to be done and compensation to be delivered for what is fundamentally a class-based issue.

At this point, it seems totally appropriate to pay tribute to my former colleague and comrade Richard Leonard. Richard, as members might know, spoke in the annual debate on this topic. He was—and, I am sure, will continue to be—an avid campaigner for the right to justice for those affected by mesothelioma and the right to health and safety for the next generation of the workforce. Those who were members during the previous session of Parliament will know not only that Richard Leonard was a passionate and committed campaigner but that his speeches were also very passionate—as passionate as his beliefs. I thank him for his time in the Parliament, for his guidance and for his commitment to economic justice. I will miss Richard in the chamber, particularly during debates on this subject—we always sat up here, at the back, together. He often mentioned socialists and campaigners who influenced his beliefs and work, and I now do the same by thanking him for his guidance and influence on the work that I have undertaken as an activist and now as an MSP.

As Richard Leonard and others have said, mesothelioma is not a historical disease. In fact, we know that the number of sufferers is increasing. The reality for the people in my area is that the industrial work of the early part of the last century, right up until the mid-1980s and into the 1990s—mainly mining, in my area—exposed men, in particular, to asbestos. However, as others have mentioned, secondary exposure through washing clothes and so on, which was often undertaken by women, also presented a massive risk, which those companies really wanted us to ignore.

The time delay in the progression of the disease means that many of my constituents continue to be affected by what happened during that period, and they are also affected by the ongoing issues around asbestos and how we should deal with it, which members have brought to our attention today.

Industrial conditions such as those that my constituents were exposed to show what the approach of big business and the insurance giants has been. We, in this place, must be clear that people are worth more than this and that working-class people—those men and women who built and maintained our country—must be compensated for the impact on their lives and for loss of life due to the nature of thei work. I agree that the Scottish Law Commission’s report on damages for personal injury, which was published in December 2024, must be actioned. I call on all lawmakers to support that call and, of course, on the Government to make it a priority in this parliamentary session.

I fear that we have a lot more work to do as we keep fighting for proper compensation and, importantly, for proper health and safety in workplaces. We must ensure that the rights of workers are at the centre of all that we do and that the generations who come after us have much better work-related health.

17:53

I am interested in the point about upstream measures, and I am particularly interested in women, because we know that they should not always enter the criminal justice system and prisons in particular. Perhaps there is more that the cabinet secretary could do in that area, because there is a lot of research on it.

I thank my colleague Jenny Young for bringing this important and thoughtful debate to the chamber.

I did not know Jo Cox, but I was privileged to meet many people who did. I attended the first Jo Cox women in leadership programme just a year after Jo was killed and found out that Jo was a kind, patient person who had spent most of her career working with those in need here in the UK and across the world. I learned that Jo had an ambition for a fairer and more just world, and I think that tonight’s debate, at a time when some seek to stoke division and hate, is a reminder that we can always choose to take a kinder and more compassionate path.

As others have noted, in her maiden speech to Parliament, Jo poetically said:

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

Last night, I spent a long time thinking about what I should speak about in the debate. I asked myself, what do the words in that quote make me—us—think?

Scotland’s story is one of immigration and emigration. Over the centuries, many people from across the world have come to Scotland, shaping our heritage and embracing our traditions. Similarly, Scots have emigrated across the world at times of hardship to find work or to be with family members who have set up new lives and homes in other parts of the world.

As I think of the events of last week, when we witnessed violence and bigotry on our streets and in my region of Ayr, which was a shock, I feel that tonight’s debate commemorating the memory of Jo Cox could not have come at a more important time.

Who are we, if we do not care about the people around us? Who are we, if our first thought is not to smile when we hear children chattering in a playground, and see children from many cultures enjoying playing and learning from one another? It should give us great joy to see that.

The attack on Jo was motivated by far-right political thinking and was fuelled by prejudice and hate. On the 10th anniversary of Jo’s death, my thoughts go out to her family and friends, and to everyone who has been impacted by that attack. I also pay tribute to Sir David Amess and send my thoughts to his family and friends, some of whom are in the chamber tonight.

I am saddened that Jo’s husband, Brendan, feels that the balance is shifting back in the wrong direction. We know that Jo’s lasting legacy, including the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, has improved individual experiences in politics, in particular for women, and has helped to create a wider societal debate about how we conduct ourselves in politics and the importance of prioritising kindness and collaboration over hate and hostility. This is a pivotal moment, and it would be wrong for that shift to reverse and to go in the wrong direction.

Every one of us in the Parliament has a moral responsibility to challenge the behaviour of those who use divisive rhetoric—as other members have said, our words matter. We know that those who use words of division serve only their own political interests; those words in fact damage our communities and public trust in institutions that wish only to serve.

I again thank Jenny Young for bringing the debate to Parliament to commemorate Jo’s memory on the 10th anniversary of her death. I also thank members who seek to serve in the way that Jo Cox would have done, had she been given the opportunity. That is how we should honour her legacy.

18:31

With the world cup under way and the Commonwealth games due to take place here in Scotland over the summer, thousands of children and young people in Scotland are being exposed to alcohol marketing, in which alcohol branding is associated with national pride and with sport. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of such alcohol partnerships, given that there is clear evidence to suggest that the more often young people are exposed to alcohol marketing, the more likely they are start consuming alcohol at an early age?

Today’s debate on Scotland’s partnership with the third sector is welcome. I hope that we can have an open and collaborative discussion on the best approach to strengthening Scotland’s partnership with a sector that is vital to the economy and society.

The third sector is at the forefront of efforts to tackle poverty, build social cohesion and protect the environment. From grass-roots groups to health and social care organisations, communities depend on the sector for support and advice. These charities and organisations can make a real and lasting difference to families and individuals right across Scotland, and they deserve to be respected and seen for the contribution that they provide.

Scottish Labour welcomes the Government’s motion and its commitment to establish a third sector partnership agreement. Formalising the relationship between the third sector and the Government is long overdue. Scotland is the only part of the UK not to have an established formal partnership with the voluntary sector. Although the approaches taken in Wales and Northern Ireland and by the UK Government are all different, it was welcome to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Housing speak about the Welsh approach. We hope that we can learn lessons from some of those agreements, which might help us to take forward some of the points that we want to action.

The agreement presents an opportunity to reset the relationship with the sector, align priorities and deliver on some of the sector’s long-term asks, such as its calls for the introduction of multiyear funding arrangements, which we have all touched on. That is why Scottish Labour has lodged an add-on amendment that makes it clear that multiyear funding should be “foundational” to the agreement. Multiyear funding not only provides more certainty for the sector and allows for better planning but enables charities and organisations to take preventative measures, and it provides long-term savings by removing the costs of repeatedly having to apply for single-year funding—I think that we all recognise that. The sector has consistently asked for multiyear funding, and I hope that the Government will agree that delivery of that should be a top priority and an essential part of the agreement.

Our amendment asks that a greater requirement for due diligence on fair work principles be embedded in the framework. We discussed that in the previous parliamentary session. Given the precariousness of third sector funding, workers often have shorter contracts and less job security. If we are serious about strengthening the Government’s relationship with the sector, consideration of workers’ rights, job protection and proper pay and conditions must be at the forefront. I know that the cabinet secretary accepts that point, and we, on the Labour benches, will do what we can to work with the Government on it.

That is why it is also crucial that the third sector is involved in co-designing the agreement. I welcome the commitment in the Government’s motion to ensure that stakeholders are involved in, and not omitted from, the design process. Current experience from within the third sector tells us that organisations often feel that they do not have a strong relationship with public bodies and that their experience is sometimes not positive. Last week’s debate about the public service reform agenda showed that the Government believes that the third sector will be key to that work, which means that working together is essential. Mutual respect and shared recognition must be at the forefront of the partnership agreement, so I really welcome the commitment from the Government and the cabinet secretary to include the third sector in the co-design process.

As in any partnership, the detail and delivery will be fundamental to success. The partnership must be supported by clear accountability mechanisms and there must be strong leadership at the forefront to drive ambitions and delivery. I have heard about some of that from the cabinet secretary today, and I hope that we can work together on it. The key asks from the sector include the setting out of a clear timetable and road map for developing and implementing the agreement, with clear lines of accountability within the Scottish Government.

There is also the question of who will be subject to the agreement and how smaller independent organisations will be represented and heard. I heard about that from some third sector organisations when I was a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. In my experience, some smaller organisations punch above their weight, so we need to include them.

In the past, we have raised the question of how public funds are distributed to the third sector. Are they used effectively? How do we ensure that local charities are prioritised instead of funding always going to national charities or lobbying groups? Perhaps the cabinet secretary or the minister could provide more detail on that during their closing remarks. How do we focus on the grass-roots organisations that are right on the front line? I would welcome the Government’s thoughts on how we can go beyond the larger groups that we usually engage with.

The Liberal Democrat amendment refers to the fact that smaller charities can find that engagement more “difficult”, and Scottish Labour will support that amendment today, because we agree that some of the smaller grass-roots organisations often miss out on funding. We must be clear about whether that is because of the time and effort required to apply repeatedly for funding or whether it is because some of the larger organisations just tend to be favoured. We need to understand that.

I again welcome the Government’s motion and the commitment to the third sector, which has faced precarious short-term funding and has criticised Parliament for that. Today’s motion and many of the amendments look towards a more financially sustainable approach. As others have said, third sector organisations often fill gaps in statutory services. In the light of the public sector reform agenda, the value and role of the third sector must be part of our conversation and part of the development and delivery of the partnership agreement that we have been talking about.

I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate and hope that we can work together to establish a really good working relationship with the third sector, because that will, in turn, mean that our communities will do better.

I move amendment S7M-00356.1, to insert at end:

“; and believes that multi-year funding and stronger due diligence on fair work principles should be foundational to a new Third Sector Partnership Agreement.”

16:03

I thank Colin Beattie for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am sorry that I am not in the chamber this evening, but I was at a funeral this afternoon. However, I wanted to speak in the debate because, in my South Scotland region, I have had frequent casework from constituents involving dangerous and antisocial behaviour.

One example that is regularly brought up is the damage that is caused by illegal e-bikes, motorbikes and quad bikes, which Colin Beattie mentioned. Residents of rural towns and villages in particular describe illegal e-bikes as being driven recklessly and at high speed, often on pavements. In other cases, motorbikes, quad bikes or other petrol off-road vehicles are regularly destroying community and private land. Whether it is play parks or farmland, they do not distinguish. Residents are understandably concerned about safety and wellbeing and are saying to me that they are genuinely fearful that someone might be seriously injured or killed because of that dangerous behaviour.

Like Colin Beattie, I commend the work of my local Police Scotland officers and their efforts to control and prevent antisocial behaviour, particularly when the service faces mounting resource pressures, with policing numbers being particularly challenging in those remote villages. More must be done to ensure that policing is adequately resourced and supported and is well equipped to deal with such behaviour.

I recognise that increased and visible community policing can impact deterrence. However, fundamentally, addressing antisocial behaviour goes beyond placing more feet on the ground. If we want to make our streets safer, protect communities and address the problem in the long run, we need to look at the deeper and wider societal issues—we need to look at tackling the root cause of antisocial behaviour. A Scottish Government review into Scotland’s approach to antisocial behaviour identified a number of systemic, deep-rooted and highly complex issues, including poor mental health; the misuse and influence of drugs and alcohol; poverty; stigma and stereotypes; and housing.

I have spoken in the chamber previously about the culture of binge drinking in Scotland. Scotland faces an alcohol crisis, with alcohol-related deaths and disease being one of the biggest challenges that our society faces. Not only is excessive drinking harmful to the individual; there is a clear link between harmful drinking and criminal behaviour, with a high number of the prison population reported to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of their offence. At the same time, we know that the root cause of alcohol misuse is often linked to poverty and deprivation, which are also connected to antisocial behaviour.

Therefore, none of those issues—antisocial behaviour, alcohol misuse and poverty—can be viewed in isolation. An independent working group on antisocial behaviour came to a similar conclusion. The group, which was tasked with developing a long-term framework for addressing antisocial behaviour, focusing on prevention and early intervention resolutions, emphasised that antisocial behaviour cannot be viewed in isolation and that, rather, it stems from deep-rooted, cross-cutting societal issues, including poverty, housing—which I mentioned—food insecurity and a lack of access to the support services that people need. The group concluded that

“Reducing antisocial behaviour requires tackling these fundamental drivers”,

and that there must be investment in prevention and support. That could mean investment in local groups, community initiatives and activities for young people to engage in things such as sport.

It is equally important, however, to have strong leadership to drive the societal change that is required to reduce antisocial behaviour. I invite the minister to outline how the Government intends to progress that work on a cross-portfolio basis, which I have spoken about before, as we go into this new session of Parliament.

Tackling the root causes of antisocial behaviour is a real investment, and I value the opportunity to discuss it tonight. I again thank Colin Beattie for bringing the issue to the chamber.

17:44

This is carers week, and this year’s carers week report found that almost half of carers in Scotland do not feel that their communities are carer friendly. The need for carer-friendly communities was first highlighted in a carers report in 2015. Does the First Minister recognise that more must be done to support unpaid carers in their communities? Can he identify any businesses, organisations or Government bodies that are working on that? What barriers would he identify to Government delivery on that?

I start by welcoming Patricia Gibson to the Parliament and thanking her for bringing this important issue to the chamber as the subject of the first members’ business debate of the session. I also thank her for her passionate and personal speech. As it is the first members’ business debate of the session, I think that it should have a special place in what we do over the coming years. I do not believe that we debated pre-eclampsia in the previous session, so I welcome the opportunity to do so today.

As others have said, world pre-eclampsia day takes place annually, this year on 22 May, to raise global awareness about this life-threatening hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. The motion rightly notes that pre-eclampsia is a global issue, with most deaths from the condition occurring in low-income countries. As Patricia Gibson said, 76,000 mothers and 500,000 babies worldwide lose their lives to pre-eclampsia and related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy every year. We know that a large number of those deaths could be preventable with the provision of correct care and medicine. I agree whole-heartedly that this is a really important issue.

The provision of correct care starts with knowing about the symptoms, and the focus of the campaign for 2026 is on educating mothers, their wider family and healthcare professionals on how to identify warning signs such as severe headaches and sudden swelling. Early screening, diagnosis and treatment are key to outcomes for mother and baby, and it is important that mothers continue to monitor their health while they are pregnant. I agree that it is important that we try to change healthcare for mothers.

The key symptoms are worth repeating: high blood pressure, severe headaches, sudden swelling in hands, face and feet, blurred vision and sudden weight gain. Maternity services should make women aware of those symptoms whenever they can.

I mentioned that we did not debate the issue in the previous session. However, much work was undertaken by many members, including some of our colleagues who have not returned to the Parliament. In that regard, I want to mention Monica Lennon, who is my Scottish Labour colleague and who was an MSP for Central Scotland. As members know, Monica Lennon was a real champion for women across Scotland and beyond. She chaired the cross-party group on women’s health and we can all agree that her pioneering and successful Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021 changed menstrual health for women across the world. She had a very collaborative way of campaigning with other members and with families and people who had experienced women’s health issues. I hope that we can continue in that spirit in this first members’ business debate of the session and onwards.

Monica Lennon campaigned with others on pre-eclampsia to make changes in Scotland to ensure that pregnancy is safer, and the Scottish Government’s announcement of dedicated funding for pre-eclampsia testing, for the first time ever, was warmly welcomed. It is now being used in every health board, and it really protects mothers and babies. Given what we have heard in speeches today, we can see that such testing is important, and the funding for it came about through the collaboration of MSPs and campaigners. Therefore, this seems the right time to thank Monica for all the work that she did across parties and with many activists from her region and beyond. As I have said, I hope that, in this session, we will take advantage of the ability of women to work together on women’s health, as we have done successfully in the past.

I hope that the minister will address the removal of the specific post of minister with responsibility for women’s health and speak to how we can ensure that members can communicate as well as we did with Jenni Minto, who held that role and worked in a collaborative way. I note that, in true Monica Lennon style, she has tweeted this afternoon to ask whether we can have some guidance on the role of the women’s health champion, which was a really important part of that collaborative working.

I thank Patricia Gibson for all her work on the issue and members for speaking in the debate. I hope that we do further work on it in the coming session.

18:24

I am interested in the points that the minister made about the importance of there being facilities in our more deprived communities that people and, particularly, children are familiar with. In the previous session, we in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee published a report on the use of school facilities, which I know that everybody across the Parliament is keen for us to pursue. Has the minister worked with people on that? It can be expensive to rent some school facilities because of the cost that is involved.

I believe that the people of this country should be citizens, not subjects, and my first allegiance is to them.

I, Carol Ann Mochan, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.