Chamber and committees

In order to have world-class public services, we need to pay for them. If we grow our economy, we can increase our tax take by having more people employed in good-quality, well-paid jobs. The more people we have working and earning, the more we have to spend on the services that they require. That is why the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” gained such traction: if the economy is doing well, public services and people are doing well. Unfortunately, as Daniel Johnson pointed out, our economy is not doing well and neither are our services or our people.

Brian Whittle was right to tie health back to the economy, because we know that, in areas of deprivation and areas where there is low pay, people have a life expectancy of 25 years less than the figure in other areas. That is why the need for economic growth is, if anything, more pressing in those areas, in order to bring equality to those communities.

We need a focus on regional development. Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about the Highlands and Islands and about our road, rail and ferry infrastructure—or, indeed, the lack of it. Infrastructure and connectivity are so important to every region, as they allow them to thrive. When Highlands and Islands Enterprise was empowered and funded, it made such a difference; now, like the South of Scotland Enterprise, which Colin Smyth talked about, it is facing funding cuts.

We need to stop the fragmentation of the enterprise establishment, because businesses now do not know where they are going. We need enterprise establishments with a local focus but a knowledge of what is going on elsewhere to work together so that a business never pitches up at an enterprise agency and is turned away.

Colin Smyth also pointed out that the more rural and further from the centre of power businesses are, the worse they fare. We need to empower our local enterprise agencies. Jamie Halcro Johnston, too, pointed to the regional responses that were required, because our not empowering people locally causes depopulation.

Many speakers, including Alex Rowley and Colin Smyth, talked about education, training and colleges, which are essential to economic growth. Colleges need to be in tune with their local communities, to know what is required for the local economy. That is important not only for young people but for upskilling and reskilling, as changes happen to the workforce.

Councillor Sandy Keith wrote to Jenny Gilruth to highlight the impact that a 25 per cent cut in staffing in UHI Moray would have on vital parts of Moray’s local economy. That is happening everywhere, but Sandy Keith pointed out, with some irony, that the college was an “integral” part of the Moray growth deal board. A cut of a quarter in an establishment that is integral to a regional growth deal seems crazy to me.

Alex Rowley highlighted the importance of schools’ attainment, and Colin Smyth referred to the cuts in Skills Development Scotland, which are incredibly worrying.

Daniel Johnson pointed out that the Grangemouth oil refinery is Scotland’s only oil refinery and is therefore of strategic importance. We need both of our Governments—the SNP and the Tories—to get round the table to protect the crucial jobs, skills and infrastructure at Grangemouth. Both the Scottish and UK Governments have faced criticism from site workers, who feel that they are being failed and that their livelihoods are at stake. We need the workers and the skills, and we need the infrastructure of the oil and gas industry to play its part, so that we can have a just transition to net zero.

By abandoning that workforce, we are not creating a just transition—we are leaving the workforce behind. The Scottish Labour Party would not do that. We would create great British energy, which would be headquartered in Scotland and would deliver 5,000 jobs and a clean energy system by 2030. If we use a GB energy company to empower our local communities, we would not have the squandered opportunities that we see with ScotWind. We would have local generation, which has brought huge benefits to areas such as Point and Sandwick, in the Western Isles.

Economic growth plays a crucial role in delivering strong public services and social change. Despite that, the Scottish Government has failed to use the powers that it has to grow the Scottish economy, which is in low growth and low productivity currently. We need a Scottish Government that takes a new approach to the economy, working in partnership with business, to unleash the true economic potential of Scotland and its people.

The Scottish Government has announced a £205 million cut in real terms to the affordable housing supply budget, despite the lack of affordable housing being consistently raised as a top concern in rural areas and consistently considered a cause of depopulation. The minister knows that it is more expensive to build in rural areas, so can he reassure me and the Parliament that the promise outlined in the rural housing action plan to deliver 11,000 affordable homes by 2032 will truly be delivered in rural areas?

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

During the debate on international women’s day, I will speak again about commercial sexual exploitation, which is an issue on which we have made very little progress on tackling since last year.

The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation published a report on international insights and how Scotland can learn from international efforts to combat commercial sexual exploitation, and Ruth Maguire held a members’ business debate on the report’s findings, which were clear. Demand to purchase sex fuels commercial sexual exploitation. Countries that have challenged demand have cut commercial sexual exploitation and they have also cut human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Sweden was one of the first to criminalise demand. That resulted in a fairer and more equal society, equality in pay and equality in caring responsibilities.

The Scottish Government has recently published “Scotland’s strategic approach to challenging and deterring men’s demand for prostitution and supporting the recovery and sustainable exit of those involved in prostitution”. It is disappointing that that document brings forward no new policy for tackling men’s demand for prostitution. It recognises that those who are involved in selling or exchanging sex are victims of exploitation—that is not new—but it does absolutely nothing to rebalance criminality. Women selling sex will still be breaking the law, while men buying it will get away scot free.

The document summarises action to date. Like many Scottish Government strategies that are being published at present, it rehashes history and shows no vision and no ambition to tackle the problem. The CPG report quotes Tsitsi Matekaire, who summed up the situation perfectly by saying:

“Without the demand of those that are buying, the sex trade would not exist and thrive. So in order to end ... sexual exploitation it really becomes imperative to address the demand, and addressing demand in law means criminalising those who buy sex.”

Sadly, we heard in Parliament today about and recently saw Iain Packer’s conviction for the murder of Emma Caldwell and the abuse of at least 22 other women. If those women had not been at risk of being criminalised and if Iain Packer had been at that risk, would the police attitude have been different? Sadly, men are allowed to continue to abuse women because of our law in Scotland, which blames and criminalises women for men’s abuse.

After Ireland criminalised the purchase of sex, analysis by University College Dublin’s sexual exploitation research programme found that

“the 2017 Act has already increased the likelihood that women in prostitution will report violence committed against them without fear of being criminalised themselves”.

Our approach must be to deal with demand while supporting women who are exploited. If we cut demand, fewer and fewer women will be exploited. By only helping women in prostitution and not dealing with demand, we create a system of unmet demand that goes to even greater lengths to meet that demand. Human trafficking for sexual exploitation grows to meet that demand. In addition, the UK Government has passed laws on immigration that impact on those who are trafficked and will make it more difficult for trafficked people to seek help.

Every step that we take to provide more cover to exploiters leaves more women vulnerable. We need to learn from international experience. The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation carried out an inquiry into pimping websites, which provide even greater cover to people who would exploit and even less protection to the exploited. Within 48 hours of the USA banning pimping websites, all the major websites had stopped hosting prostitution adverts.

For decades, the Scottish Government has recognised prostitution as violence against women. It creates inequality. How can women be equal if they are commodities to be bought and sold?

Bringing in a ban is not easy; every country that has challenged demand for sex buying has faced pushback. Internationally, every change in the law to tackle demand has been backed by strong political leadership. The Scottish Government must therefore go back to the drawing board and come forward with policies that tackle demand. Government members must become leaders who are willing to take on entitlement, social norms and vested interests and take a stand for the exploited. We need that kind of leadership in Scotland.

Because of staff shortages, NHS Western Isles is offering record salaries to general practitioners to relocate to the islands. Will the Scottish Government now reassess rural and island recruitment incentives to attract staff, given that the cost of employing locums is excessive?

Moreover, given that one of the reasons for the current difficulty is people’s inability to find homes, will the Government also take steps to address the housing crisis in those areas by placing a ceiling on the numbers of holiday homes and second homes that a community can sustain, and by placing a burden on homes that are subsidised by the public purse, to keep them within the local housing market?

Can you hear me now?

I thank Paul Sweeney for securing the debate. I commend the work of Marie Curie and wish it well with the daffodil appeal. As well as commending its care services, through which it made 1,532 visits across the NHS Highland area last year, I commend its work on raising awareness of end-of-life care.

Palliative care is not help to die; it is help to live. When days are few, they are precious, and we need to savour each and every one of them. That should not depend on a person’s wealth or where they live. The Marie Curie and University of Glasgow report “Dying in the Margins; The Cost of Dying” shines a light on health inequalities, which occur right through to end-of-life care. There is a 24-year difference between the healthy life expectancy of people who live in our most-deprived communities and that of those who live in our least-deprived communities, which is why I am proposing a “right to food” bill. Given that diet is so important to health and life expectancy, I hope that that would make a difference.

Not only are less-wealthy people more likely to die younger, but they are also less likely to have the facilities that they need to make them comfortable. Even heat is unattainable: 94 per cent of people are concerned about terminally ill family members and friends being unable to pay for energy, which is simply not right, at the end of life. People who live in rural areas are far less likely to be able to access palliative care, because there are very few health professionals, and people live some distance from services. It is often down to the dedication and good will of a few health professionals that people are cared for at the end of life and, indeed, that they can choose to die at home. I pay tribute to those professionals.

Paul Sweeney highlighted the difficulties that Marie Curie faces with increasing demand, increasing costs and decreasing funding. The organisation is asking for funding to be put on a formal footing in order to cut down the time that is spent on negotiations for funding of care. It also asks that the Scottish child payment be extended to terminally ill people who have dependent children. It would be targeted at those who are in most need, given the lower life expectancy of people who live in the most-deprived areas.

For too long, palliative care has been largely ignored, even though most of us will need it. People need to be able to choose where to die, and they have a right to die at home. It is important for a person whose life is drawing to a close that they have good-quality palliative care, but it is also really important that their loved ones have support. Good-quality palliative care in a place of our choosing should be available at the end of life, as should support for family and friends. We all need the right to palliative care.

I have a quick question on the back of that. Given that the commission has still to be set up and given that the plan is still being consulted on, can you tell us what the commission’s remit is with regard to the plan? As it might be in place before the commission itself, will the commission be able to influence what is in it?

I accept that the Scottish Government wants to take a precautionary approach, but it is not taking enough cognisance of the fact that creelers and divers cause less damage. I will support the motion to annul on the understanding that I look to the Government to bring back another instrument as soon as possible to protect the spawning areas. There is bycatch in creels, but it is not killed—it is simply let away. Bycatch in creels is not an issue here at all. I ask the Government to look at the issue again and to come back with something sensible.