Chamber and committees

Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems recently highlighted the so-called multiple disadvantages faced by black and minority ethnic people who are struggling with alcohol harm, whereby culture and other issues add to the barriers to people seeking treatment. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that everyone in our society can access the support that they need?

I thank Jenni Minto for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is a pleasure to speak in honour and recognition of Dr Elsie Inglis, who was a true pioneer of women’s rights and medical services in this city, this country and across Europe.

It is fitting that we mark Dr Inglis’s life and work in the same week that we mark international women’s day, when we celebrate the role of women across the world. She certainly made a difference to more of the world than many people of her era had the chance to. Much has already been said about her domestic activities and her work on the rights of women across Britain, especially their right to participate in society and their right to equality and dignity with regard to medical treatment. It is remarkable that Dr Inglis was able to achieve so much when society’s odds were stacked against her, and her achievements speak to her determination to do what was right.

That was certainly noticeable in Dr Inglis’s service during the first world war, when she set up hospitals and medical teams to aid allied troops in the most appalling conditions. Her work in Serbia in dealing with a typhus epidemic and during her captivity has made her a national hero in that country. As Denis Keefe, the former United Kingdom ambassador to Serbia, noted:

“In Scotland she became a doctor, in Serbia she became a saint.”

In light of recent events, I was particularly struck to see that one of Dr Inglis’s final journeys was to Odessa, then part of the Russian empire, to aid suffering soldiers there. It is a sobering thought that we are once again sending aid to allies fighting in the same region.

Dr Inglis died a day after she returned to Britain, and she never got to see the legacy that she had created for women in Britain and for medicine abroad. It is therefore fitting that we are finally discussing how best to celebrate Elsie Inglis’s legacy. I pay tribute to the organisations such as the OneCity Trust and Girlguiding Scotland that have been campaigning tirelessly for a statue to Dr Inglis, and to the lord provost of Edinburgh, Frank Ross, who has personally campaigned for this cause. I also pay tribute to the fundraising work of Fiona Garwood and Thea Laurie, both of whom are in the Parliament today, I believe. Whatever the final form, I agree that it is time that Edinburgh recognised Dr Inglis’s life and work with a permanent memorial.

I also note the initiative this month at Edinburgh central library, inspired by the Elsie Inglis campaign, to create a mural to highlight Edinburgh’s unsung women. I hope that, through those efforts, we will soon be able to further the work of Elsie Inglis and her fellow campaigners for equality, so that the women who have shaped our city and our nation are remembered at least as much as their male counterparts. [Applause.]

I declare an interest as chair of Edinburgh and Lothians Regional Equality Council.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the chamber on international women’s day. Scottish Labour supports the motion and the amendment. As other members are, I am shocked by the scenes of families being torn apart by the war on Ukraine and of women continuing to care for their children and elderly relatives in unimaginable conditions. Women there are, as they are in every other conflict, being exposed to rape, sexual abuse and male violence simply because they are women. In situations of war, women must be placed at the heart of the peace process and at the centre of recovery. That must be one of our messages on international women’s day.

In Scotland, each year the Parliament provides a focus for members to celebrate women’s achievements in every sphere of life. For example, members have supported me in a motion commending Angela Moohan and the Larder West Lothian. The project provides high-quality training and dignified food provision. Angela has now made it into the NatWest WISE—women in social enterprise—2022 top 100 list. She is only one example among many inspirational stories. The pandemic has shown the strength of so many women who have been caring for their communities and families throughout it.

All political parties have made promises that there should be no return to the old inequalities, as we come out of the pandemic, but we must recognise that the evidence is that we are not going in that direction. Yesterday, for example, Women in Sport published a report, “Reframing Sport for Teenage Girls: Building Strong Foundations for their Futures”. It caught my attention because I am concerned by the decline in sporting activity during the pandemic, which has led to increased isolation and mental health problems for young people, as community and sports facilities were closed.

The report shows that, by the time they reach secondary school, girls drop out of active participation in sport at nearly twice the rate that teenage boys drop out. Citing reasons including loss of confidence, worry about body image and increased pressure from gender stereotyping, those girls are missing out on so much. It is on all of us to address that.

Scottish Labour is committed to seeing more women and girls living active lives and participating in sport at all levels. We must encourage participation by women from various religions and diverse minority communities, in particular, through provision of single-sex opportunities. We must also create community spaces that are welcoming and safe places in which women can exercise.

The remit and membership of the Scottish Government women in sport advisory board is under review as we learn from the pandemic. I ask that the “Reframing Sport for Teenage Girls” report be considered by the advisory board and that priority be given to addressing the issues that have resulted in girls and young women pulling away from sport and outdoor activities.

I hope that the specific needs of women and girls from ethnic minority communities can be addressed. Investing in the next generation means investing now in girls and young women, and supporting them to lead healthy and active lives.

I pay tribute to the many smaller organisations that work for and with women in our black and ethnic minority communities and in our various cultures. Those organisations include Edinburgh and Lothians Regional Equality Council, Saheliya, Networking Key Services, Milan Senior Welfare Organisation and Multi-Cultural Family Base. There are many others that work with and support women in Edinburgh—for example, Action for Children’s heritage and inclusion project, which seeks to end isolation among teenage girls, and Intercultural Youth Scotland.

We recognise that the contribution that is made by many women in our communities is so often in addition to the commitment that they already invest in their homes and families. Parliament must find a way to ensure that their knowledge and experience inform our legislation and policy making.

I also pay tribute to individuals including Mrs Saroj Lal, Mrs Shamshad Rahim, Mrs Shaheen Unis, Mrs Rohini Sharma Joshi and, of course, my two colleagues Pam Gosal and Kaukab Stewart, for making a difference in the black and ethnic minority community.

To conclude, I say that women in Scotland must have confidence that the Parliament listens to, learns from and acts on their concerns and priorities—not only on international women’s day, but every day.

My next question will also be for Mariam Ahmed and Tumay Forster. Is there sufficient funding in the system to allow for language-trained staff who are also trained in dealing with trauma? If not, what would it take for the situation to be improved?

Good morning. I have a very short question. I have heard black and minority ethnic people say that they feel uncomfortable going to a dedicated BME organisation because they feel that the community is so small and that word can get out. Socially and culturally, they feel very uncomfortable. What is your view on that? Marsha Scott said that more investment is needed, but should work be done on language, too? How can that effect be mitigated? Should people be referred to wider services rather than to a BME organisation?

Amina has touched on this and I will be directing this question to Amina. I have heard examples of people in BME communities being reluctant to visit specialist services for that community due to the community being so close that it will inevitably get out one way or another and there may be repercussions for them socially. How can that effect be mitigated? Is there an argument for wider services being more prepared to deal with cases for BME communities? Mariam, you have touched on that already. You said that it could come back on victims, and you might want to touch on that as well and say how what is done about that could be stronger.

I have a lot to go through, so I will carry on.

Instead, the fairer funding issue that we should be considering is to do with working conditions in the screen industry. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted the difficulties that women and parents face in the industry because of the working conditions that are now common. Our amendment to the motion suggests that secure working conditions and support for talent in Scotland should be priorities.

Although we have a screen sector that we can be proud of, more can be done to maintain the sector and to support the people who work in it. Scottish Labour believes in a vibrant public service broadcasting sector, and our amendment seeks to preserve it into the future. I invite members to support it.

Today, we have heard considerable support for the future of public service broadcasting. We have heard how it benefits the Scottish economy and Scottish culture. We have also heard criticisms—some of which were fairer than others—of the BBC and the state of public service broadcasting in this country.

The motion welcomes the increasing number of productions that are being made in Scotland and the on-going efforts of Screen Scotland to attract productions. Scottish Labour agrees with that. We also strongly agree with the sentiments in the motion on defence of the BBC and Channel 4 against threats to their “operational independence”.

The BBC is a national asset. Although it is not infallible, it is envied around the world for the quality of its productions and the reliability of its journalism.

The UK Government seems to be content to use the BBC and Channel 4 as red meat to throw to Tory back benchers in Westminster—no doubt, in order to keep them on side after recent scandals. However, what it proposes would be an act of cultural vandalism for only momentary political gain.

Where Scottish Labour cannot agree with the motion is in the demand that BBC Scotland receive a “far fairer” share of the licence fee income that is raised in Scotland. We do not believe that that compares like with like. The “BBC Group Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21” show that, in the most recent pre-pandemic year, 85 per cent of the licence fee that was raised in Scotland was spent in Scotland. Given the inevitable outside costs of its broadcast service, international journalism, sports coverage and global media monitoring, that seems to be reasonable. My colleague Sarah Boyack noted the incredible work of the BBC in covering Ukraine and Russia. We can be proud of those parts of the BBC without considering the spending on them to be anti-Scottish.

The share of the licence fee that is spent in Scotland has, of course, fallen during the pandemic, when the BBC has been forced to cut non-essential TV production. We must be patient and see whether investment returns to its pre-pandemic level before we make sweeping judgments about fairer funding for Scotland.

It is a pleasure to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I thank the committee and its members for their report. It is an in-depth and considered look at a topic with many strands, and the committee has done well to pull them all together. I also thank the many witnesses who contributed to the committee’s inquiry. The sheer breadth of their expertise is impressive and has provided us with a considerable resource as we proceed to consider these matters.

It is clear that the creation of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was a watershed moment. It not only signalled the effective end of the immediate Brexit process, but inaugurated the new and uncomfortable era in which we in the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of this country now find ourselves. The committee’s report does a good job in highlighting the tensions that are at play between the devolved institutions and Westminster, and it provides constructive commentary on how those tensions might be mitigated in the future.

It is necessary to look back briefly at how we got into this situation. It was clear to everyone that certain powers would be repatriated when the UK left the European Union. It would therefore have made sense for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments and institutions to arrange how that would work in the context of the devolved settlement. The fact that it did not do so and we are now in a situation of considerable tension within the devolved settlement illustrates that devolution works best when Westminster and the devolved nations work together, rather than apart.

I hope that future Governments learn the right lessons from that experience. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation in which an act of the UK Parliament was created despite the withholding of legislative consent in Scotland and Wales. However, we are where we are. Scottish Labour remains committed to devolution and to allowing it to work well. Let me move on to the tensions that are set out at the heart of the report and the committee’s suggestions on how they might be resolved.

On the tension between free trade and regulatory divergence, the committee’s view appears to be that the UK Government has got the balance very wrong. We in Scottish Labour agree. We agree that there needs to be room for Scotland to innovate in policy and in its economy, and that the UK Government has come down too harshly on the side of being prescriptive about what must be done in devolved areas. We are concerned that, in effect, the 2020 act reinforces the Tory free-market view of the world and stifles Scotland’s ability to set its own standards in public procurement practice.

On the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition, Scottish businesses, particularly in the agriculture sector, could be put at risk if the Tories pursue their worst regulatory instincts and insist on lowering the standards to which we have become used over the past few decades. However, I am pleased that the committee, having examined tensions in that regard, underscores the importance and economic benefit of open trade across the UK.

I note that the committee heard examples of complete or near-complete integration of supply chains within the UK. It surely follows that the imposition of trade barriers within Great Britain, which would happen eventually under the Scottish Government’s plan for independence, would cause significant disruption to such supply chains and the wider economy. Certain members might not like to hear that, but it is the logical consequence of there being such deep integration in our economies.

The report makes it clear that there is room within the common framework to work through some of the tensions that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has caused in the devolution settlement, but it also highlights the risk of creating a power imbalance between executive and legislative functions across the UK. That is a crucial point. It is perhaps not surprising that it is committees of this Parliament and the House of Lords at Westminster that are highlighting the tensions and distinct lack of transparency in the intergovernmental system.

To put it simply, members of this Parliament and other legislatures across the UK need to be able to see and comment on the processes to do with the common frameworks, and so, too, do other stakeholders in the economic and regulatory environment. We cannot possibly repair confidence in our devolved settlement if all the work to do so is done in the dark, away from the eyes of people with an interest in the system and how it is supposed to function.

I am grateful to the committee for all its work in bringing those concerns to the Parliament. Labour members look forward to engaging with continuing work to address the matter in future.

Good morning. I share the pain that Micheleine Kane has spoken about. I have one question for her. What could we do with the social security powers that we have in Scotland to help kinship carers?

My second question is for all the panel members. What barriers exist to kinship carers gaining the benefits to which they are entitled, and what problems exist with the current system of entitlements?