Chamber and committees

The role of women is absolutely vital in resolving conflicts around the world. I am absolutely certain that the role of women is also absolutely vital in keeping peace.

The Westminster Government has completely abandoned human rights and its duties in relation to asylum seekers. I have to say that, because it is something that I feel strongly about. If there is to be no legal route through which people can claim asylum, it will be impossible for women and children to flee regimes under which their lives and liberties are threatened. It is important to say that in this debate.

In Scotland today, asylum-seeking women are experiencing increasing food insecurity, women with caring responsibilities are struggling to afford essential items, and single mothers are facing further pressure in keeping their households afloat on a single income. As others have said, sexism, misogyny and gender inequality are still so deeply rooted in our society that, sadly, they have become normalised.

Therefore, Scottish Labour—as Pam Duncan-Glancy said in opening the debate for Labour—is committed to pushing for change. Last year, we launched a consultation that proposes a long-term strategic response to ending, once and for all time, gender-based violence in Scotland. There is some excellent work by the Scottish Government on that: I welcome what Nicola Sturgeon said about the importance of justice, in that regard.

Tackling women’s poverty and continued economic inequality is also critical to realising gender equality and embracing equity in Scotland. It is absolutely clear that the escalating cost of living crisis is resulting in untold harm being done to women. It is deepening gender inequality at a time when women continue to experience the fallout from the on-going Covid-19 pandemic.

In Scotland, women make up the majority of people who are employed in temporary work and on zero-hours contracts, which means that they are disproportionately exposed to worry about the reduced hours, unemployment and underemployment that are associated with precarious work.

Young women are full of power and promise, but many are held back by inequality and sexist attitudes. Unfortunately, they are the same, if not worse, sexist attitudes that their foremothers experienced. As I and other members have said in many debates, we have a serious duty in that regard. We would have expected, by 2023, to see a massive difference in the level of sexism. However, if anything, in some respects it is getting worse.

During the pandemic, young women—especially black and minority ethnic women, as well as those on low-incomes—were less likely to have their furloughed salaries topped up by their employers. Scottish Labour believes that work that is considered to be “women’s work” should be properly valued, so we repeat our call for an immediate pay rise to at least a £12 per hour in social care.

Presiding Officer, I have gone well over my time. I will cut to the end and say that the debate has been excellent. Monica Lennon quoted Dolly Parton and Pam Duncan-Glancy quoted Cher, so I will quote Beyoncé. In the future, “Who run the world?” I hope that it will be women and girls.

I whole-heartedly welcome that. Labour supports that proposal, and we welcome the Government’s bringing it forward.

That was an absolutely excellent speech by Natalie Don; 100 per cent of this afternoon’s speeches have been excellent, and I have enjoyed them all.

On international women’s day, it is important for us to reflect on how far we have come and to discuss what we have yet to achieve.

As other members have done, I want to recognise what Scotland’s first woman First Minister has accomplished not just in the United Kingdom and Scotland, but internationally. I know that that is true, because when I was on a recent visit to Jordan—Nicola Sturgeon knows about my passion for the middle east—someone found out that I was from Scotland and asked, “Oh, do you know Nicola Sturgeon?” I said, “I’ve never heard of her.” [Laughter.] Seriously, I did. The First Minister is laughing.

From a private conversation that I had recently with Nicola Sturgeon, it turns out that we share a passion that I should not really reveal—all I will say is that it begins with “sh” and ends with “oes”.

I want to say something personally to Nicola Sturgeon. You might not recall this but, in 2011, I found myself losing my seat. I kind of thought that it would happen, but my team were devastated. All that I will say is that I will not forget the kind words that you said to me back then. I thank you for that and I thank you for the service that you have given this Parliament, in public life.

Today, I also want to reflect, as others have done, on the position of women and girls around the world—in particular, the position of women in Afghanistan. That is important to mention because Afghanistan is the only country in the world in which education of girls is actually banned. Some poor countries are trying very hard to get girls educated, so it is a disaster and it is shocking that girls in Afghanistan cannot be educated at secondary-school level.

Women and girls across our country face many issues that have been mentioned by our First Minister and others. However, we must draw attention to the struggles of women and girls around the world, in conflict zones and in regimes that deny fundamental human rights. If I may, I will mention, because it is a passion of mine, the Palestinian women who suffer deeply in occupied Palestine because of a lack of healthcare and a lack of fundamental rights.

I had the privilege on Monday of representing Labour at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The assembly recognised 25 years of peace in Northern Ireland. I and other colleagues had the privilege of listening to former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and other key people who were around 25 years ago, including Sir John Holmes. They talked about how difficult it was to get the peace agreement signed 25 years ago and how different it might have been had people like John Major, Tony Blair and others not been sitting round the table.

However, importantly, we also heard from the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, which was set up at around that time. I have to say that I did not know much about it until I heard about the role of women in achieving peace and about their being party to the agreement. That is something that we do not hear about often, but it is crucial. The Women’s Coalition also had the job of trying to get women to stand for local elections and went from no candidates to 79 candidates in a matter of weeks. Those amazing brave women should be recognised for what they did.

I give way to Emma Harper, who was also at the meeting.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support Glasgow students in student rental accommodation, in light of the reported proposed rent increases by the University of Glasgow. (S6O-01951)

The minister will be aware that, in a report by the National Union of Students Scotland, purpose-built student accommodation has been described as “appalling” by the president, Ellie Gomersall. The report found that the average rent for that accommodation

“has increased by 34% since 2018”,

and that a quarter of students who were sampled in the report could not pay their full rent on one or more occasion.

This has become a real problem, and rent increases of 9.5 per cent by the University of Glasgow seem incredibly harsh. If I have understood the minister’s answer, he is hinting very strongly that he also thinks that that is wrong.

In view of that, and in view of the fact that private landlords can increase rents by only up to 6 per cent, does the minister believe that the 9.5 per cent increase is unfair to students, that the Scottish Government should legislate to cap high rents in student accommodation in the private sector, and that a modern, fair Scotland would do that?

To be honest, from what you have illustrated, I do not see how things will change. Is there no one else to call when a person is identified as being in acute mental health distress? In circumstances in which the powers under section 297 would be used, who else would be contacted?

What service should people be referred to?

Good morning, Professor McKay. You have been involved in excellent work, so thank you very much for that. My questions follow on from the questions that the convener and Jamie Greene asked, because I am having difficulty visualising what the system might look like—forgive me for returning to a subject that we have covered.

As Jamie Greene said, we have heard from those in the police service that they work 24/7 and have a responsibility to keep people safe, so they have a duty to come out when they are called. Realistically, how is that going to change? Who would take the place of the police in a different system, and where would people be taken to if they were not taken to A and E?

I have been in forensic units, so I am familiar with those, and I used to represent mental health nurses, so I have a bit of knowledge about that. I am thinking about whether we have the places; we might have shut down too many places when we did the big reforms in the early 1990s. I am trying to visualise what the change will look like.

If mental health nurses took over, would they need to change their working patterns and be given new restraint powers? The circumstances might be difficult, and the police are called because they have those powers. Clearly, we want to avoid taking people to A and E. Anything that you can say to help me to visualise what will happen would be useful.

I welcome the fact that the letter sets out the situation quite clearly. From my reading of it, the implementation issues seem to be to do with the financial context, but it would be good to get clarification on that.

I welcome the fact that firework control zones “will commence”. For me, the test is whether they, and the offence, will be used by local authorities. That is what I am interested in.

I had concerns about the licensing scheme anyway, so I am not at all concerned about that delay. We had also raised concerns about the costs. I would not be happy if those powers were used without our having some indication of the cost of the scheme.

I am actually quite supportive of the letter’s content. It is an interesting lesson for people who are observing the legislative process. We think that we have passed all the laws, but we have not—what matters is when the statutory powers are drawn down in each section of the act. The letter clearly sets that out.

Surely, the only way that the situation can change is if there is an alternative to calling 101 or 999, so that people can call someone else. Otherwise, it will always fall back on the police. I cannot see how that could possibly change.