Chamber and committees

There are powers in the bill to cap, refuse or recover support payments when those would not be in the public interest. On what type of occasion would you envisage using those powers?

That raises a huge number of other questions. Who will decide whether someone is a proper person or whether they have used the money as intended? That seems very broad.

That would all be covered under a public interest test, would it?

We heard that some land that probably required more financial assistance was receiving the lowest level of support. Do you see that changing following your review?

Given some of the evidence that the committee saw during our visit on Monday, is there anything in the bill that would stop people from accessing funds to buy shared equipment? We saw some great equipment during our visit, but for small-scale farming and crofting, it seems that it is only affordable if it is purchased jointly. Is there anything in the bill that would stop grazing committees or co-operatives from coming together to apply for funds for shared equipment? Would that have an impact on their ordinary agricultural funding applications?

Yes. You are defining the food production that you would support as being high quality.

I am wondering what would fall foul of the definition of “high-quality food”. Why does the bill not just say “the production of food”, full stop? The inclusion of the term “high-quality” must be there for a purpose and I want to understand what would fall foul of that definition.

We should tackle violence against women all year round, but the debate provides us with the opportunity to take stock of where we have reached. It is sad that Rape Crisis Scotland is this year again having to employ a waiting list for people needing its support. Nobody should have to wait for the support of Rape Crisis, but we need to imagine a Scotland where Rape Crisis is no longer required and where violence against women does not happen.

Violence against women is a symptom of women’s inequality in society, so we need to change attitudes, we need social change and we need to stop commodifying women. We were promised legislation on commercial sexual exploitation, and I hope that the minister in summing up will let us know where the Government is with that, because if we live in a Scotland where women are commodities, we cannot possibly be equal.

We need equality on pay and wealth, and we need to stop women’s poverty being exploited through prostitution in exchange for food, clothes, drugs, alcohol and money. Criminalisation needs to target those who feed the trade, not those who are vulnerable and exploited in it. We need routes out and we need to make sure that those who are being exploited get the support that they need. They need to have jobs, security and wealth.

I pay tribute to the Women’s Support Project, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. It supports survivors of prostitution by helping, healing, empowering and advocating for them. I hope that it continues to do that for many years.

Members have talked about the trafficking of human beings. Commercial sexual exploitation feeds that market like no other. If there were no market, there would be no trafficking. We need to look at things such as saunas, online pimping and so-called adult entertainment venues. We need to stop them being allowed to operate in Scotland without any intervention whatsoever.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests with regard to speaking engagements with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It has warned that the threat that is posed to Ukrainian refugees by sex traffickers underlines the need for politicians across Europe to challenge trafficking. The OSCE also states that the countries that do not challenge sex buying experience much higher rates of trafficking.

It is obviously in the interest of people who get wealth and power from trafficking that it continues. However, it is not only the people who are trafficked who come to harm; trafficking harms the whole of society through inequality, lack of opportunity and violence against women. Any woman in a society where women are for sale is fair game, and those who are especially vulnerable, such as refugees, suffer the brunt of that.

In Sweden, where they took action and imposed the Nordic model, not only did prostitution and trafficking decrease, the gender pay gap narrowed and caring responsibilities were shared more equally. The whole of society became fairer.

The motion says:

“Imagine a Scotland without Gender-based Violence”.

I can; I am an optimist. Together, we can make that a reality.

While the Government continues to speculate about hypothetical scenarios, our coastal and island communities need support right now. One way in which the Government could support our coastal and island communities is by ensuring that fishing in Scottish waters works for the benefit of Scottish communities. Given that only 50 per cent of Scottish fish are landed locally, how is the Government using the powers that it currently has to increase that proportion and ensure that our coastal and island communities benefit from fishing?

In his statement, the minister said nothing at all about how we reduce the amount of heat that we need. My constituents suffer the highest levels of fuel poverty in Scotland due to living in old, draughty and poorly insulated homes. There was nothing at all in the statement about insulation and how we tackle the fabric of our buildings. When will the minister address that fundamental question?