Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was a connection difficulty. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order—

I thank Marie McNair for bringing today’s debate to the chamber, marking action mesothelioma day 2025. I commend her long-standing commitment to this deeply important cause.

On 4 July, we will once again pause to reflect, raise awareness and, crucially, demand action. Mesothelioma is a cruel and relentless disease. It is relatively rare, yes, but it is far from irrelevant. It is a cancer that is caused almost entirely by exposure to asbestos—those invisible fibres that embed themselves in lungs, silently wreaking havoc over decades.

As we have heard, there are currently around 200 cases annually in Scotland, but behind every statistic is a family, a community and, often, a story of unnecessary suffering. Tragically, the face of mesothelioma is changing. Once it was seen largely in men who worked in heavy industry, such as shipyards, power stations and construction, but now there are more women, more young people and more individuals from non-traditional sectors—teachers, hospital workers and people in clerical roles—who have been exposed unknowingly and often decades ago.

I want to recognise the work of Action on Asbestos, which was formerly Clydeside Action on Asbestos. It is a remarkable organisation that has, for more than 30 years, stood by those affected, not just with practical support and legal advice—although it does that tirelessly—but by working directly with NHS Scotland, funding specialist nurses and vital research to improve treatment and outcomes. The work is not only compassionate but critical.

Turning to the issue of the time bar in relation to asbestos-related conditions, although the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 rightly recognises that asymptomatic conditions such as pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asymptomatic asbestosis are actionable harms, we still face a serious problem. Under the current law, a person who has already claimed for an asbestos-related condition may find themselves barred from seeking further damages if they later develop mesothelioma, which is an incurable and life-limiting cancer.

In recognition of that issue, the Scottish Law Commission in its December 2024 report recognised that, and I put on the record my thanks to it for its comprehensive work on the issue. The recommendation is crystal clear: asymptomatic conditions should not trigger the time bar for the later development of symptomatic conditions. I believe that that is a vital step towards fairness, and I welcome it.

I have spoken to the Government on that issue, and there is a need—perhaps even a duty—to consider whether a legislative amendment or regulatory action is required to address that loophole and ensure that those living with mesothelioma are not penalised by legal technicalities. I ask the minister to consider meeting me and Marie McNair to discuss how we can progress the matter. Those affected do not have the luxury of time. They deserve dignity, clarity and justice.

I close by paying tribute once again to Clydebank Asbestos Group, Action on Asbestos and every campaigner who has fought so hard, often while battling illness. Let action mesothelioma day 2025 not be just a day of remembrance; let it be a day of renewed resolve to right the wrongs of the past and protect future generations from a legacy that should never have been theirs and ours.

More than 55,000 people have been killed and more than 127,000 people have been injured. More than 70 per cent of Gaza has been bombed into oblivion. Since 18 March this year, more than 80 per cent of Gaza has been under displacement orders or military control orders. Each day brings more untold horror. Each new report, each image and each child’s cry pierces the conscience of the world—or at least it should.

My heart goes out, as must all our hearts, to those who are directly affected—to those in Gaza who are enduring unimaginable suffering, to the families of hostages and victims, and to those in Scotland who feel that pain deeply and personally. It is a pain that we all share, whether we choose to openly acknowledge it or not.

Parliament debated this very issue in the early days of the war. At that time, some members expressed understanding for Israel’s initial actions, citing security reasons or the right to self-defence. However, I do not believe—I do not hope—that people in this Parliament continue to stand by those words in today’s circumstances. How can we defend the indefensible? How can we defend systematic destruction and blatant genocide? How can we defend mass starvation and the deliberate targeting of civilians who are seeking aid?

Only last night, I listened to a British doctor who is working in Gaza. He described the injuries of civilians—men, women and children—who had been shot while attempting to reach aid distribution points. He said that those injuries could have been inflicted only on people who were lying face down in the sand, cowering in fear, unarmed and seeking food. Those were people desperate to live, and what they found instead was a firing line—a shooting gallery. That is not just indiscriminate or inhumane; it is a direct affront to every humanitarian principle that we claim to uphold in the international order.

Yet where is the outrage? Where are the sanctions? Where, indeed, is any action? We have seen the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants, both for Hamas leaders and for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. What is the response from the United Kingdom Government and the UK Prime Minister? At best, there are warm words; at worst, there is complicity. They are happier to be pictured with a beaming smile alongside a despotic US President who is hellbent on facilitating continuing genocide than to take action to save the people of Gaza or to acknowledge the historical injustices that the UK finds itself guilty of in the current situation.

Internationally, we see the same inaction and the same complicity. The latest UN Security Council resolution appeared to offer a glimmer of hope as members came together to call for the actions that are set out in today’s motion, only for it to be vetoed by one party—the United States.

However, rather than give the UK and others cover, we urgently need to seek other international mechanisms and instruments in the face of continual Security Council impasses. The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, has asked the UN General Assembly to authorise peacekeepers to accompany humanitarian convoys. That is indeed possible and achievable. A statute dictates that, where the Security Council is paralysed by a veto, the General Assembly can—and, indeed, must—step in. A majority vote among its 193 members could authorise peacekeepers. Let us be clear that such a vote would pass. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to support such a move and to urge the UK Government to bring forward such a resolution.

More glimmers of hope seemed to be on the horizon when we were told that the UK and France were on the brink of recognising a Palestinian state. A Franco-Saudi summit was planned. Ordinary Israelis have been calling for peace—I have Israeli friends who are calling for peace. Israeli Opposition leaders have called for a ceasefire and for elections to take place so that a new decision can be made.

How did Netanyahu’s regime respond? It launched a unilateral strike against Iran, risking regional war and the lives of its own citizens—all to distract from corruption charges and domestic political failure. That is why I call on not only Governments but the people of Israel—good, decent people who want peace—to speak out, because their lives, too, are being gambled away in the name of fear, hate and political preservation.

We must all do our part to speak out and to take concrete actions. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has been outspoken in its condemnation of the genocide that is taking place in Gaza and that it has been outspoken on the need to adhere to international law. I welcome its support for a Palestinian state. I welcome its announced review of Scottish Enterprise’s human rights checks when awarding funding. However, I note the concerns of Amnesty International and Oxfam that the review lacks the necessary transparency and their calls for an independent review, which would promote transparency and trust in the process. I would welcome the Government’s thoughts on that in its response to this evening’s debate.

Although I appreciate that our powers here are limited, our voice is not. We must ensure that we use what powers we have and that the voice that we raise is heard loud and clear, for it is not only through action but through moral leadership and partnership—although we must have action along with those—that we can hope to bring an end to the suffering.

There can be peace in the middle east, but only if the world, including this Parliament, chooses to stand up and demand it—and demand it we do.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is telling me that I have not voted, but I did, and I voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I got a connection error. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that my phone is even more tired than me. I would have voted yes.

Alex Rowley raised the important issue of support for teachers. Freedom of information releases show that South Lanarkshire Council, which is run by Labour, has received more than £12 million of Scottish Government funding to reverse cuts to teacher numbers, but it refuses to do so and will end up cutting 65 more teachers. Will the cabinet secretary speak about the impact that that reckless decision by Labour will have? Does she agree that councils, including in Glasgow and other areas, should use that funding to support teachers?

Learning from the just transition for Aberdeen and the north-east, can the minister advise how communities and businesses across Scotland will benefit from the just transition to net zero and how the Scottish Government will ensure a greener, fairer future for all?

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the motion in the name of our colleague Rhoda Grant, and I pay tribute to her long-standing work on tackling human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, and in particular her advocacy for women and girls who so often feel that they are failed by the system.

It is a painful truth that, in modern Scotland, prostitution remains a legal avenue through which violence against women is perpetrated. That is not just a contradiction; it is a failure of justice. The Scottish Government rightly recognises prostitution as a form of violence against women and girls, yet we are faced with the grim reality that the law, as it stands, does not yet reflect that recognition.

Let us be crystal clear: no woman aspires to be sexually exploited, and no girl dreams of being bought and sold. We, in the chamber, have a responsibility not only to condemn this form of abuse, but to act—legislatively, practically and compassionately—to bring it to an end.

The report, “International Insights: How Scotland can learn from international efforts to combat commercial sexual exploitation”, which was produced by A Model For Scotland, led by survivors, is not just a policy document, but a testimony. It is a call from those who have lived the reality, who know its cost and who refuse to accept that the next generation should suffer the same fate. It tells us that reducing demand is the key to reducing harm. It tells us that we must act on the so-called pimping websites: those online platforms that act as digital marketplaces for the commodification of human beings. Those sites are not neutral spaces—they are greedily profiting from exploitation by acting as intermediaries between buyers and vulnerable women.

The report tells us also that we must criminalise the act of paying for sex, not to punish those who are engaged in survival prostitution but to hold to account those who fuel and finance the trade. We cannot say we that oppose violence against women and then allow a system to flourish in which women are bought, sold and discarded like consumer goods.

However, the third and equally vital part of the model is support, which means decriminalising those who are being exploited. It means recognising that the women in prostitution are not criminals—they are victims of inequality, poverty, trauma and abuse, and they deserve not just our compassion but concrete, sustained support such as housing, trauma-informed services, mental health support, education and employment. Those are not luxuries, but necessities if we are to help women to exit exploitation and rebuild their lives.

We know that the so-called Nordic model, which is sometimes called the equality model, actually works. It has been adopted in countries such as Sweden, Norway, France, Ireland and others; those countries have seen a reduction in demand and in trafficking, and improved outcomes for women. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has called on states to adopt those very reforms, as has the European Parliament, along with countless survivors, researchers and human rights organisations.

If we are to live up to our obligations under the Istanbul convention and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and indeed under our own human rights framework in Scotland, that is the direction that we must take. It is not about morality, but about human dignity. We must ensure that no woman in Scotland is ever left in a position in which her only choice is to be bought and used by someone who holds economic and social power over her. We must say clearly, as a Parliament, that women are not commodities and that the buying and selling of human beings has no place in a just society.

I add my voice to the calls from members across the chamber, from survivor-led organisations and from international human rights bodies to let us move forward with the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. Let us end the legal impunity for those who exploit and dismantle the online infrastructure that profits from pain, and let us support, not criminalise, those who have been caught in the cycle of abuse. Scotland has the opportunity to lead and to make a principled, progressive stand for justice—let us take it.