Carol Mochan
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I think that we could take a different approach in that area. A number of older people have been convicted of terrible crimes, but their risk to the general population is much lower than it used to be because of their age and circumstances.”
“Industrial conditions such as those that my constituents were exposed to show what the approach of big business and the insurance giants has been.”
“I am interested in the point about upstream measures, and I am particularly interested in women, because we know that they should not always enter the criminal justice system and prisons in particular. Perhaps there is more that the cabinet secretary could do in that area, because there is a lot of research on it.”
“Those who were members during the previous session of Parliament will know not only that Richard Leonard was a passionate and committed campaigner but that his speeches were also very passionate—as passionate as his beliefs. I thank him for his time in the Parliament, for his guidance and for his commitment to economic justice.”
“I support the Cape must pay campaign, which calls on the former asbestos manufacturer Cape plc, now Altrad, to donate £10 million to mesothelioma research. As my colleague Jackie Baillie said, that is a small amount to expect. Such companies and the state owe a great deal to individuals, families and communities.”
“For a number of years, I was a director of Turning Point Scotland, which is Scotland’s biggest social welfare charity, although I am not any more. Fifteen years ago, we commenced an initiative called housing first, which is primarily a way of dealing with homelessness.”
The complete record
Every one of 657 lines we hold for Carol Mochan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 14.
“That is not nuance; it is moral clarity. Let us also be clear about recognition of a Palestinian state. Statehood cannot be seen as a solution in the face of on-going violence; it must be the outcome of a genuine peace process that begins with the rejection of terror and the embracing of co-existence. Until such time as Hamas is disarmed and dismantled, and until the Palestinian leadership is willing to live in peace alongside Israel, it appears that lasting peace in the middle east will, I am sorry to say, remain tragically out of reach. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that, given the number of colleagues who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Bill Kidd to move the motion.”
“Does Stephen Kerr call for international journalists to be allowed into Palestine, as some of us do, so that we can get accurate reporting of what is happening? Stephen Kerr: As Carol Mochan will appreciate, the situation on the ground in Gaza is very complex. We would all like to see some honest reporting of what is transpiring. As I was saying, calls for a ceasefire must be accompanied by calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages who are still held by Hamas. A two-state solution must be grounded in mutual recognition. I hope that members appreciate and accept that Hamas fundamentally rejects recognition of the state of Israel. I do not believe that there can be equivalence between a democratic state acting in self-defence and a terrorist organisation using civilians as shields.”
“First, I appreciate Carol Mochan’s welcome of the documents. We have a lot of shared endeavour in relation to what they can achieve and in recognising their importance in supporting and enhancing health and social care services. We will be setting out our regulations on foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar later this year, and I would expect the publications that Carol Mochan has asked for to be a part of that. Carol Mochan stressed the need for ambition. The regulations will match what is happening in England and Wales already, so that there is consistency across these islands. However, I recognise that there is more for us to do in supporting people to have healthy, active lifestyles and in tackling obesity. That is what the population health framework is all about, and we are trying to enable people to deliver on it.”
“I welcome the publication of the long-overdue population health framework and the Government’s response to the high in fat, sugar or salt consultation, which has just been published in the past few minutes, although we were promised it at the start of this year. Those things are critical to improving health and reducing inequalities. However, I fear that the Government’s actions fall short of its ambition. When does the Government intend to publish its impact assessment on food and drink that is high in fat, sugar or salt? If the Government is truly committed to delivering improvements to health and reducing inequalities, it will need to ensure that regulations are brought forward, otherwise it will just be the usual piecemeal approach to public health intervention. Neil Gray: I have a number of things to say.”
“There is a disconnect between what the Government promises to do and what it actually delivers. Delivery is essential. Neil Gray: Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding her speech. Carol Mochan: I am closing—I apologise. I hope that members will support Labour’s motion, which recognises the on-going workforce crisis and calls on the Government to undertake a wider review of NHS workforce planning, which must be reported on by the end of the year. Our NHS workers and patients deserve better. The status quo of this Government is no longer an option, and Scottish Labour is ready to deliver the whole-scale change that our NHS needs and deserves. 15:24”
“Since 2013, the number of registered nurses who are employed in care homes has decreased by 28 per cent. That issue is important because those nurses greatly contribute to keeping hospital admissions down, so we must take the statistics seriously. Delivering and supporting a sustainable nursing workforce across Scotland is crucial to improving overall patient care and experience, yet our nurses report feeling undervalued and overlooked. When it comes to issues such as corridor care, poor planning has left staff feeling ashamed, demoralised and distraught. Our NHS workforce deserves better, and things cannot continue as they are. The Government is aware that urgent work is needed to attract and retain a sustainable workforce, yet there is no obvious plan.”
“Our healthcare system is crying out for additional staff, but newly trained doctors and nurses, who are highly motivated and ready to serve, are meeting with disappointment when they are being told, after years of training, that there are no jobs, although that is not true. The system is crying out for highly professional, trained staff. If we want safe staffing, the NHS must fill more posts, and the Government knows it. How can it be right that newly qualified nurses are being forced to find jobs outside Scotland, despite completing their training at Scottish universities and hospitals, where they see the pressures day in, day out? There are currently more than 2,600 unfilled whole-time-equivalent nursing and midwifery vacancies. We hear from nurses daily that going through and completing the recruitment process in the NHS is agonising.”
“Ambulances are stacked up outside accident and emergency, patients are waiting hours for treatment and those who are ready to be discharged are forced to remain in hospital while waiting for appropriate care packages. Everything has stagnated, but let us be clear that people understand that it is not the staff’s fault. In fact, people speak very highly of the staff; the issue is the system, and the responsibility lies with the Government. At the centre of the Government’s stagnation is our workforce, which is struggling to keep up with demand in a fundamentally broken system. After 18 years in power, the SNP has presided over a workforce crisis in which staff shortages not only risk patient safety but put additional pressure on the existing workforce, which impacts their mental and physical health.”
“I am pleased to speak on an issue that concerns the very backbone of our NHS: its workforce. I begin by echoing other members’ points about the value of our NHS workforce. It is the beating heart of the NHS and, without it, services and care would collapse, which is why it is so important that we discuss the matter openly and honestly in the Parliament. I thank all those who work tirelessly in Scotland’s NHS. Scottish Labour recognises the contribution and value of workers and understands the pressure and strain that they face daily. When I speak to constituents, one of the many things that I hear is how difficult it is to see a local GP, and I hear about how long NHS waiting lists are.”
“I have to trust that the bill will achieve what the minister believes it will and that it will fulfil its potential to create change, because the care sector in Scotland can no longer wait for serious reform: it needs action now. We heard from my colleague Jackie Baillie that 10,000 Scots are waiting for care assessments or for care, and Michael Marra reminded us about the Government’s financial incompetence. Our constituents need delivery, because they are the ones who will suffer in the long run. Scottish Labour will work with the Government to build on any potential and, as I have said, will support the bill this evening, but make no mistake: Scottish Labour in power will deliver a national care service that is worthy of the name, and that is what we look forward to. 18:41”
“Throughout the stages of the bill, we have sought to ensure that the legislation will address commissioning and fair work, which is essential to ensuring improvement in social care. We brought both of those issues back at stage 3, and we are pleased that our amendments have been successful. We would have wished for much more, but it was clear by stage 3 that the Government had no ability or vision to deliver that. We want to see Anne’s law, carers’ right to breaks, improved commissioning and digital care records in place as quickly as possible, which is why we will, of course, support the bill this evening. However, there is much work to be done.”
“Although it is not the legislation that I or many wanted, what is important now is that we make it as robust as possible and take on board the concerns that many of my colleagues, the trade unions and professional organisations have raised throughout the bill process. I say a big thank you to all our constituents— people such as the care home relatives Scotland group and many more—who have truly influenced the bill and worked with us. They have contacted us, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the legislation progresses. Scottish Labour’s vision was for a bill that really addressed the long-term needs of social care, putting it on a footing with our NHS and creating a system fit for the future, for staff and users.”
“When I joined the Parliament, back in 2021, there was genuine enthusiasm, following the Feeley review, about the prospect of a national care service. Only four years later, that enthusiasm has been depleted and we have a much-reduced bill. What was once heralded by the Government as the “biggest public sector reform” of a generation is now a limited number of stage 3 amendments. The bill does not address the fundamental problems in social care, and the Government seems to be unable to tell us how it will address those issues. That is a great shame. It was our duty to build enthusiasm and support for what could have been such far-reaching legislation. As we have heard, it is a missed opportunity to be transformative, which is due largely to Government inability and lack of vision.”
“With that definition we would get the breadth as well as the depth of data that we require to maintain an on-going and viable social care service. On that basis, I will press amendment 66. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I think that we need to use the data that is available to us and to seek opportunities to refresh and mine data in order to get us the information that we need to make good quality decisions, both strategically and operationally. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I was grateful for Martin Whitfield’s interventions, because the issue is not just with our urban areas, where there is a lot of focus; it is also about areas where staff issues are critical to delivery of any kind of service at all. I think that the strategic dimension of what is proposed in the amendment makes it a worthy amendment for members to support. I again draw colleagues’ attention to the broadened definition in the amendment of “social care workforce”, which I think has value in and of itself.”
“Stephen Kerr: Well, there is no occasion, regardless of the content of any bill in this place, that we do not get into constitutional hilarity. We have had our fair share of that in this group of amendments—[Interruption.] There is indeed a vow of silence actually. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Let us have less chitchat from a sedentary position. Stephen Kerr: I think that the minister has approached the issue in amendment 66 from—if I may say so—the wrong direction. It is about using data but not drowning in data. I do not think that the amendment would create a situation where our bureaucracy will be drowning in data.”
“Indeed, many of the elements that are called for in it are already in current guidance or under development. Although I have concern about the drafting, as I have set out, I appreciate that stand-alone guidance might provide an opportunity to emphasise the importance of and the commitment to sectoral bargaining in social care. Therefore, I will support it. To summarise, I will support and encourage others to support Carol Mochan’s amendments 76 and 77 and Jackie Baillie’s amendment 80. I would ask Stephen Kerr not to press amendment 66, because that amendment duplicates existing law. I would invite Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 79, which risks causing the passage of the bill to be delayed for months by a referral to the UK Supreme Court. 16:45 The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to press or withdraw amendment 66.”
“The amendment would require ministers to produce guidance on sectoral bargaining and social care procurement that “Contracting authorities must have regard to”. Unfortunately, there is no definition of who the contracting authorities are that would be under the duty to have regard to the guidance, nor is there any definition of “social care procurement”. Therefore, it is unclear who “must have regard to” the guidance and in relation to what procurement activities. Those are fundamental points. The amendment would also require ministers to take steps to support compliance with collective agreements. Again, there is a real problem with clarity here—there is no attempt in the amendment to define what a collective agreement is. However, I support the intent behind amendment 80.”
“It is delivering after four years of your having failed to do so. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Maree Todd: The reality is that we are waiting for the UK Government to catch up with the intent of the Scottish Parliament. It is rare that members will hear me say this in the chamber, but I am delighted with the UK Government’s work on the Employment Rights Bill. It has worked closely with us to ensure that it is fit for the sector in Scotland, and I am pleased with that. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 80 is not beyond the Parliament’s competence. I appreciate what she is seeking to achieve with it, but I regret that she did not work with us on its drafting because that is suboptimal.”
“Although the provisions of that bill are being debated at Westminster, there is clear intent for it to establish provision for a national social care negotiating body for Scotland, which will offer the option of providing a statutory footing for setting pay and terms and conditions for the social care workforce through fair pay agreements. With employment law being a reserved matter, it is only the UK Parliament that can introduce legislation in that area. Of course, I find that fact deeply regrettable. If Jackie Baillie does as well, we will be delighted to have her support in campaigning to have competence over employment matters and for industrial relations to be transferred to this Parliament. Jackie Baillie: I look forward to the minister welcoming the actions of a UK Labour Government.”
“Those would be significantly delayed if the amendment is agreed to. That is why I find it extremely disappointing, given the clear issues of competence and the extensive engagement that has taken place since stage 2, that Jackie Baillie chose to lodge it. I assure members that I am committed to progressing sectoral bargaining for the social care sector. The fair work in social care group has been working with the sector to develop a voluntary sectoral bargaining model to provide a mechanism to determine pay and terms and conditions on a voluntary participation basis. The Scottish Government is constructively collaborating with the UK Government on its Employment Rights Bill.”
“Should the amendment be agreed to today, the whole bill might be referred to the Supreme Court, which would impede getting royal assent for the bill for months—possibly for the rest of the session. Jackie Baillie: The minister will have heard me say clearly that she should put on record the progress that has been made so that people can see the advances in sectoral bargaining, which she would acknowledge is important to securing the workforce in social care. Maree Todd: I certainly intend on doing that, but it is important that I set out the consequences of voting for amendment 79, too. There are important provisions in the bill for which there is broad consensus for change across this Parliament, including Anne’s law, the right to breaks from caring and independent advocacy.”
“I also welcome that the provisions provide time after commencement to develop an efficient and proportionate data collection and reporting process through consultation. The strategy should not create a reporting regime that places unnecessary burdens on the system. I cannot support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 79, which would require ministers to use sectoral bargaining to negotiate employment conditions. As we have already heard, the amendment is about industrial relations, a matter that is reserved to Westminster and therefore not within this Parliament’s competence to legislate on. As members know, the Parliament has very limited scope to legislate in that area.”
“I am pleased to support Carol Mochan’s amendments 76 and 77, which will require ministers to produce a fair work strategy for the care sector and to report on the extent to which fair work is being realised. Unlike Mr Kerr’s amendment 66, that would not duplicate existing reporting requirements because there are currently no duties to report on fair work in the sector. The duty aligns with the Government’s existing commitment to advance fair work in social care and the workstreams of the fair work in social care group to improve pay and conditions. Annual reporting by ministers will ensure transparency on the data and on our assessment of progress, and it will provide accountability in any actions that are necessary to improve practice.”
“It is also a summary of the steps that ministers have taken to support staffing levels in care services and to ensure that funding is available for them to assist the discharge of their duties, as well as how the above will be taken into account in determining the future supply of registered nurses, medical practitioners and other kinds of care professionals. Because the 2019 act came into force in April 2024, the first ministerial report will be laid before Parliament in October this year. That might be why parliamentarians are unfamiliar with the richness of data and analysis that will be available through that report. I am not against collecting and reporting on data.”
“Martin Whitfield: My intervention on Stephen Kerr about his amendment 66 was specifically in relation to the challenge in our rural areas, where a lack of staffing can cause potential problems that should light up red on a dashboard of concerns. Will the minister confirm where in the current data and analysis we can see the potential for a crisis before it reaches a crisis? Maree Todd: At the moment, Scottish ministers already have a duty under the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 to prepare and lay before the Parliament an annual report on staffing and care services. That is a summary of how care providers, local authorities and integration authorities are discharging their duties and the effect that staffing levels have on the discharge of those duties.”
“The Scottish Social Services Council produces an annual workforce report and there is also a national workforce strategy. There is no shortage of information that is already being produced that deals with exactly the matters that are talked about in Mr Kerr’s amendment. Of course, it is important that there is good quality data to inform policy on important issues. The Parliament has legislated in previous sessions to ensure that data exists in relation to the social care workforce. As a Parliament, we have to be very mindful that we do not waste taxpayers’ money and divert public servants from serving the public by drowning them under layers of duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy. That is what amendment 66 would do, and I urge members to reject it.”
“Maree Todd: Our workforce is at the heart of delivering health and social care services to the people of Scotland. The bill is crucial to ensuring that the workforce feel valued and supported. Amendment 66 by Stephen Kerr would require ministers to audit the social care workforce every seven years. However, that would create a duplication of work that is already being done, which is why I do not support it. Mr Kerr might not be aware of this, but ministers already have a duty under section 58 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 to monitor the number of social service workers that are needed and available, as well as other matters such as the adequacy of training provision for them. On top of that, there are annual reporting duties on ministers under the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019.”
“As I said earlier, the Parliament should review its role in determining competence beyond stage 1, rather than leaving it to the Scottish Government, and I will write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to ask it to do that. Amendment 80, which is not judged to be incompetent, would require the Scottish Government to publish guidance to commissioning authorities, including on sectoral bargaining processes and outcomes in contract conditions, contract notices, bid documentation, award criteria, contract awards and contract management. I have worked with the minister and her officials on other amendments to improve the implementation gap that exists in current procurement legislation and guidance. Amendment 80 seeks to go slightly further and ensure transparency and compliance with sectoral bargaining.”
“I appreciate the concerns that the minister raised about the legal competence of the amendment. It is a matter that we have discussed before at some considerable length. Although I regard the amendment as being entirely competent—because it refers to sectoral bargaining in the context of the Scottish Government’s devolved functions and nothing else—I would be prepared not to move it if the minister could make a robust statement on the progress of the Government’s work on sectoral bargaining and its firm commitments for delivery. Presiding Officer, you will appreciate my frustration: it has been more than four years since Derek Feeley published his report and the lack of progress on these matters is both frustrating and disappointing.”
“I am pleased to see my friend Angela Rayner, as part of a UK Labour Government, driving forward the Employment Rights Bill. However, we do not need to wait. We in the chamber can act today in areas that are devolved. Amendment 79 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers, to the same extent permitted by any other enactment, to negotiate employment conditions for social care in Scotland through sectoral bargaining. The amendment would also require the Scottish ministers to “give effect to any minimum rate agreed through sectoral bargaining” when determining the funding allocation for “adult social care in the annual Local Government Finance Settlement, and ... issuing guidance in the Local Government Finance Circular”— all of which are devolved.”
“Where improvements are considered to be limited, ministers must set out the reason for that and any actions that they will take to make improvements. Stephen Kerr’s amendment 66 is very reasonable and I will support it. Of course, I will also support the amendments of my colleague Jackie Baillie, to which she will speak. Jackie Baillie: I intend to speak to amendments 79 and 80. In my view, one of the glaring gaps in the bill is the failure to tackle the issue of fair work. Scotland is facing a workforce crisis in social care. Chronic low pay and poor terms and conditions mean that staff are leaving the sector and choosing to work in retail, where the pay is better and the pressure is less. We need to value our social care staff and make it a career that people want to choose.”
“Establishing a duty to review would ensure that, over time, the strategy and the assessment of what constitutes fair work remain focused on the key issues for the care sector and for its workforce. I also propose that the strategy be developed and kept under review through consultation, taking into account the views of those responsible for the delivery of care and those involved in the delivery and receipt of care services. Amendment 77 would establish annual reporting by Scottish ministers on fair work in the care sector. Those annual reports would support the monitoring of progress on fair work as set out in the fair work strategy that is proposed in amendment 76. In the reports, ministers would be required to make an assessment of improvements made towards achieving fair work in the care sector during the reporting period.”
“The strategy would establish what constitutes fair work in the care sector and set out how ministers will monitor and report on the extent to which progress towards fair work is being achieved. Where there is an assessment that improvements need to be made in the arrangements for fair work in the sector, ministers will be able to set out actions to address those issues. That may include, for example, guidance on what constitutes good work practices. 16:30 Amendment 76 provides that the fair work strategy should be reviewed every three years, starting from the date that it is first published, which itself would be 18 months after the commencement of the provisions.”
“My amendment 66 is about not headline- grabbing measures, but the infrastructure of good governance and ensuring that we track and respond to the needs of those who do the work on which our care system depends. It is a modest but important step toward sustainability and accountability, and I urge my fellow members to support it. I move amendment 66. Carol Mochan: I thank the minister and her officials for their work in ensuring that I could bring back at stage 3 my amendments on fair work from stage 2—it is much appreciated. I will speak to amendments 76 and 77. Amendment 76 would introduce a new duty on Scottish ministers to develop, through consultation, a fair work strategy for the care sector, and to publish it.”
“Martin Whitfield: Stephen Kerr envisages an audit that is more than just a numbers game, in the form of a report that would be laid before Parliament. Is it in that report that he would anticipate that the Government must address the question of shortages in our rural and remote areas in particular? Stephen Kerr: That is exactly the premise of the amendment—it is about not only collecting data, but using that data to form a plan on which action will be based. I agree with Martin Whitfield’s assessment and I am grateful for his intervention, because it is only by undertaking a regular, detailed audit that examines capacity in those settings specifically that we can identify the unique challenges that we face and respond accordingly.”
“Importantly, the definition of “social care workforce” in amendment 66 is broad and inclusive; it recognises not just those who are employed in traditional settings, but personal assistants, support workers and others who are working through self-directed support. It acknowledges that the sector is pluralistic and is delivered across the public, private and third sectors, and that it is increasingly shaped by individual choice and flexibility. Any audit must reflect that complexity if it is to be useful. That is significant in particular for rural, remote and island communities, where workforce fragility is most acute. In such areas, a single staff vacancy can jeopardise service continuity, and workforce shortages can force unnecessary hospital admissions, isolate individuals and place intolerable burdens on unpaid carers.”
“The audit must not only report on the state of the workforce, including concerns around capacity and retention, but include a plan to address any issues that are identified. It is a duty not just to analyse, but to act. The seven-year timeframe is deliberate and considered. It is not about adding bureaucracy or duplicating existing short-term reporting; rather, it is about enabling deep, strategic assessments to inform major reform cycles. It aligns with long-term workforce planning horizons and would ensure continuity across sessions of Parliament and ministers. It would avoid the risk of constant short- term tinkering, while ensuring that there is regular and predictable scrutiny of what remains one of the most critical components of our care system.”
“The bill rightly focuses on empowering service users, strengthening rights and improving outcomes, but we must recognise that none of that is achievable without a stable, supported and adequately resourced workforce. The success of the reforms for which we are legislating now will, ultimately, rest on the shoulders of those who are delivering care in our homes, communities and institutions. That is why we need a clear picture— not once, but repeatedly—of the state of that workforce, where the gaps and challenges are and where investment and reform are most needed. Amendment 66 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to conduct an audit of the social care workforce every seven years.”
“Amendment 66, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 76, 77, 79 and 80. Stephen Kerr: Like some other members who have lodged and spoken to amendments at stage 3, I, too, come late to the party, as it was put earlier. However, I feel, after reading the bill as it stands, that there is an opportunity for us to strengthen the workforce planning element of social care. I therefore seek members’ support for amendment 66, which seeks to introduce a reoccurring statutory audit of the social care workforce. It is a reasonable and measured proposal that is designed to strengthen the delivery and long-term sustainability of social care services in Scotland by ensuring that workforce planning is based on robust, regularly reviewed evidence.”
“I had intended to deal with the matter during the debate, but I feel that there is a gap in the Parliament’s procedures. I wonder whether, when determining competence beyond stage 1, rather than leaving it to the Scottish Government to advise, there is a role for Parliament. I wonder whether we could refer the issue to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and ask it to report back to Parliament on that issue at a later stage. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Ms Baillie for her point of order. I have stated clearly the current position of the Parliament. If the member wishes to promote a real change in the Parliament, the member knows exactly how best to go about that, given her years of experience in this place. I hope that I can now turn to group 8, which is on the social care workforce.”
“The Presiding Officer takes a view on the legislative competence of a bill at its introduction. Thereafter, it is a matter for the Parliament to decide whether to agree to an amendment that someone views as being outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. Whether that amendment is or is not outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence can only be definitively determined by a court. Once a bill has been passed, various processes are in place—as set out in the Scotland Act 1998—that may be initiated if someone views a bill or any of its provisions as being outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. I trust that that responds to the member’s point. I would now like to turn to group 8— Jackie Baillie: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to respond to the point of order that has just been made.”
“In line with rule 9.10.5 of the standing orders, which establishes four criteria for the admissibility of amendments—proper form, relevance, consistency with general principles and consistency with decisions already taken—can the Deputy Presiding Officer please confirm that legislative competence is not included in those criteria and that neither the assistance of parliamentary clerks in drafting an amendment nor the selection of an amendment for debate is an indication that an amendment is within the legislative competence of this Parliament? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Ms Haughey for her point of order. I advise that, as members will be aware, whether the subject matter of an amendment is within the legislative competence of the Parliament is not one of the criteria that will determine its admissibility.”
“Clare Haughey: On a point of order, I understand that amendment 79 in this group, lodged by Jackie Baillie, contains provisions that are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they relate to employment rights and duties and industrial relations, which are, of course, reserved matters under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.”
“Maree Todd: The provisions in amendment 65 were in an amendment that was lodged at stage 2, which I was unable to support in the end because it required ministers to make regulations dealing with matters that are already dealt with by primary legislation passed by this Parliament. I am grateful that Sandesh Gulhane is not going to press amendment 65, and I suggest that we all breathe a sigh of relief. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sandesh Gulhane to wind up by pressing or withdrawing amendment 65. Sandesh Gulhane: I seek to withdraw amendment 65. Amendment 65, by agreement, withdrawn. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 8 is on the social care workforce.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move on to the next group, I wish to correct the record on a previous vote in group 4. The result of the division on amendment 61, as amended, was in fact: For 51, Against 66, Abstentions 0. That does not change the result of the vote. After section 43 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on care inspectorate powers. Amendment 65, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, is in a group on its own. Sandesh Gulhane: The intention behind amendment 65 was to expand the enforcement powers of the Care Inspectorate with a view to improving standards of care, ensuring resources are available for increased use of inspection volunteers. However, after further discussions, I will not press amendment 65. Amendment 65 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].”
“I will speak briefly to amendment 42. Jackie Baillie and the minister have worked very hard to include international workers in new section 53A of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. It is important to acknowledge that the treatment of international workers can be less favourable, and we must combat that through ethical commissioning. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up on the group. Maree Todd: I confirm that I encourage members to support my amendments 40 and 41 and Jackie Baillie’s amendments 42 and 43. I was pleased to hear that Brian Whittle does not intend to move amendment 64. Amendment 40 agreed to. Amendment 41 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. Amendment 64 not moved. After section 41A Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.”
“In the time that I have left, I want to talk about the online pimping websites that other members have mentioned. If we do not start to tackle them, things will only get worse. Those men hide behind the internet and their computers, and we need to look for good examples of how we might be able to change that. In closing, I thank everyone for speaking in the debate. I hope that the Government can shed some light on the work that it is doing to progress this matter, and on how it might work with Ash Regan on her bill, because it is so important that we work together. I thank Rhoda Grant for continuing to push the issue in the chamber and out in communities. 17:33”
“As legislators in Scotland, we must listen to that evidence and act with some urgency. As we have heard from other members, a more effective solution has been found in the Nordic model approach, as implemented in countries such as Sweden and Norway, which criminalises the purchase of sex and decriminalises those who sell it, thereby recognising the true victims of exploitation. The bill that was introduced by Ash Regan recognises that, and it would add legal rights to support exit services, counselling and real alternatives that aim to give the women involved a genuine path out of prostitution. That is what struck me at a recent meeting in the Parliament, where women were discussing what it was like to be trapped and to feel that nothing could change, and it is an important part of the bill that Ash Regan has introduced.”
“In a previous debate in the Parliament, my colleague Rhoda Grant said: “It is essential that we deal with demand, because trafficking for sexual exploitation is the most profitable form of modern slavery in the world and is fuelled by demand.”— [Official Report, 18 January 2024; c 35.] Trafficking is a global industry of more than $100 billion per year. Money is such a driver in manipulating and exploiting vulnerable people, and vulnerable women are exploited all over the world. In earlier debates in the Parliament, we have discussed how, in countries that take the liberal approach of normalising prostitution, there are higher levels of trafficking, and how, in those that take the opposite approach, human trafficking has decreased. That is where the evidence is leading us.”