Ben Macpherson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“It would be helpful to understand from the member’s supplementary question what he means by degrees that “offer limited value”, so that we can understand the point that he is trying to make. Thomas Kerr: I will get a list over to the minister. I am always happy to educate the education front bench about pointless degrees.”
“I am sure that, collectively, we all want to congratulate the 2024-25 school leavers, 93.5 per cent of whom were in a positive destination nine months after leaving school. We will also, I am sure, want to recognise together the dedication of the practitioners who supported them to achieve that.”
“Can he guarantee that every pound that has been allocated to apprenticeships is being spent on apprenticeship training, rather than elsewhere in the education budget?”
“This year, building on previous work and initiatives, the Scottish Government has introduced a new Government-led skills planning model—which has been developed in close partnership with stakeholders, including those in industry—to ensure that our post-school education and skills system becomes even more responsive to Scotland’s strategic…”
“We want to support all our young people to choose a pathway that suits their strengths and enables them to fulfil their potential to the greatest extent, developing their skills and critical thinking. Our all-age careers support, delivered by Skills Development Scotland and other partners, promotes every pathway to our young people.”
“Ben Macpherson: Daniel Johnson knows that I like to be constructive in my dialogue in the chamber, but I must gently point out that one of the key problems that those in industry have emphasised to me is the impact of the national insurance increase, as well as other pressures and costs that have affected the number of apprenticeship star…”
The complete record
Every one of 643 lines we hold for Ben Macpherson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“I fully commend the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for taking this bold step, and I am absolutely certain that complainers and those who came to the committee to argue for the measure will be delighted if the Parliament agrees to the amendment. Jamie Greene: A number of us came to the committee at stage 2 on the issue of court transcripts, which has been bumbling along in the Criminal Justice Committee for many years, with a range of stakeholders having expressed quite strong views on it. I absolutely understood the issues around extending the franchise to all victims in all cases, such that all transcripts must be available to everyone at all times.”
“Perhaps it is something that the cabinet secretary will be able to comment on. I urge all members to support amendment 83, which reflects our commitment to ensuring that our justice system responds effectively to the unique needs of victims who have suffered complex trauma, putting their needs front and centre always. I move amendment 83. Pauline McNeill: I speak in support of amendment 83 and the work that Audrey Nicoll has done on the matter. As she has said, Jamie Greene and I supported her on access to transcripts being extended, for the reasons that she has set out. In the course of the committee’s work, victims have often told us that they do not feel at the centre of a process in which they are the complainer. Being able to read back what happened in a trial where they were at the centre is very important for the recovery process.”
“Amendment 83 seeks to add a new subsection to section 94 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to require that a transcript is made and sent to a complainer at no cost. That will apply to cases involving sexual offences listed in section 288C of the 1995 act that were heard in the High Court or the sexual offences court and that commenced on or after 31 December 2006. I am very grateful to Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland and other organisations for their support for amendment 83. Russell Findlay: I wonder whether Audrey Nicoll has given any consideration to extending the amendment to other serious cases that are prosecuted in the High Court or in the sheriff court at solemn level. Audrey Nicoll: I know that that has been proposed and given some thought.”
“For some survivors, access to transcripts has a practical function if they are involved in another process, such as one in the civil space. For many, access to a record of what was said during a trial is an extremely important part of their recovery and closure process, and such access reflects a justice system that is trauma informed and trauma responsive. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for agreeing to the establishment of a pilot that enables survivors to access transcripts free of charge and for extending the pilot beyond its original timeframe in order that a number of operational considerations—such as the development of emerging technology, the evaluation of potential demand, and potential legislative changes—could be considered more fully.”
“Audrey Nicoll: Amendment 83 would enable survivors of rape and sexual offences to access court transcripts from the clerk of justiciary free of charge. For context, I note that, at stage 2, I moved a probing amendment on the issue, joining Pauline McNeill and Jamie Greene, who lodged similar amendments. I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s commitment to engaging further on the issue in advance of stage 3. The difficulties that survivors have historically experienced in accessing a record of a trial were first brought to the Criminal Justice Committee’s attention in 2021. I pay tribute to the women who described the challenges that they faced, with one having had to pay more than £3,000 for a single transcript.”
“I know that it is a long day and that we are discussing lots of amendments, but, although amendment 39 might seem small, I want the wider public to understand its importance. If the bill is agreed to tomorrow with the inclusion of amendment 39, all victims of crime who have their cases heard in solemn proceedings will be able to make a victim impact statement to court in a manner of their choosing, if they so wish. That franchise simply does not exist at the moment. The change would be a really positive step forward for our justice system. If amendment 39 is agreed to, it will be a good day for victims. I press amendment 39. Amendment 39 agreed to. Amendment 104 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 10 is on court transcripts. Amendment 83, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, is the only amendment in the group.”
“As often happens, it has flagged up an Opposition amendment that, despite being well intentioned— as Ms Dowey’s amendment 104 is—is drafted in such a way that members are unable to support it. Such issues crop up frequently and could be addressed. If the Government agrees with the principle, it has ways and means of fixing amendments that it thinks are not competent. The Government lodged a number of manuscript amendments after the digital deadline passed, so I do not understand why it could not have addressed the deficiencies in Ms Dowey’s amendment. I apologise for not being able to support the wording of amendment 104, but I commend her for lodging it. The substantive point on this group of amendments is about victims being able to make statements in court.”
“Victim statements are central to ensuring that a judge understands the victim’s experience and the impact that a crime has had on them, so that that can be reflected in the judge’s sentencing decision. Anything that could impact that would be an unwelcome step backwards. It would also cut across Jamie Greene’s amendment 39, which will expand the use of victim statements. If people do not take up the opportunity to make a victim statement due to the mandatory nature of its being read in open court, the benefit of the expansion could be lost. On that basis, I ask members to support amendment 39 and to oppose amendment 104. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 39. Jamie Greene: I thank members for the very constructive debate that we have had.”
“Angela Constance: On the amendment, I ask members to have a wee bit of patience. The pilot is the best way forward in the context of the sexual offences court, because it would enable a full range of alternative formats for making victim statements. As I said, victims having the opportunity and choice to make their victim statement in their own words and in their own voice has intrinsic value. Amendment 104 could have the unintended consequence of victims not using their opportunity to offer a victim statement at all or, if they do, providing a statement that does not offer the same level of insight to the judge to inform sentencing. That is because many statements might contain extremely sensitive information, so disclosure in an open court might not be wanted by the victim.”
“Amendment 104 would make it mandatory for victim statements to be read aloud in court, by the victim or, if not requested by them, by the judge or sheriff, whether the victim wants that or not. It is vital that victim choice is respected. Making it mandatory that statements are read out loud in court removes victims’ ability to choose how their personal experiences are shared. That undermines trauma-informed practice, which is built on the principles of choice, autonomy and empowerment. Liam Kerr: Victim Support Scotland is very clear that it supports amendment 104. How does the cabinet secretary respond to that? Angela Constance: I hope that Mr Kerr and his colleagues will bear in mind the voice of Victim Support Scotland when we vote on the bill’s final passage tomorrow. Russell Findlay: What about this amendment?”
“Amendment 39 will go some way towards doing that, but the Government could still go further in ensuring that all victims are aware of their rights and the methods by which they can ensure that their voices are heard in courts. Angela Constance: Amendment 39 and the pilot are constructive strides that will help victims to reclaim their agency, acknowledge their experience and, crucially, support their recovery, all of which are at the heart of the culture that we wish to establish through the creation of a stand- alone sexual offences court. I reiterate the point that there is always more to do. I cannot support the other amendment in the group, in the name of Sharon Dowey, and I urge her not to move it.”
“Jamie Greene: I thank the cabinet secretary for that additional information. It is very welcome news. There are other cases, particularly in our summary courts, that are still relatively serious and in which a victim does not have a voice. Today’s debate, particularly on Sharon Dowey’s amendment 104, has thrown up the issue of empowering victims to choose the manner in which their statements are made and whether they want them to be made. Amendment 104 could have been easily fixed by a technical tidy-up that would make the opt-out more palatable, which it is not in its current draft. However, the point that it makes is important: people should have their voices heard in courts.”
“That allows us to take a considered and step-by-step approach to widening how victim statements are provided. That is why, in addition to supporting amendment 39, in my letter to the Criminal Justice Committee on 5 September, I committed to conducting a pilot of alternative formats for making victim statements in the sexual offences court if the bill is agreed to tomorrow. 16:30 At present, victim statements can only be made in written form. It is important that alternative formats, whether they are pre-recorded or in person, are trialled in recognition of the fact that some victims want the opportunity to reflect on the impact of crime not only in their own words but in their own voice. Choice is imperative, because not everyone will feel safe or comfortable reading out their statement in an open court.”
“Angela Constance: Amendment 39 relates to another area on which I have been pleased to have been able to work with Jamie Greene. As has been outlined, the amendment will expand the eligibility to make a victim statement to all victims in all solemn proceedings. That is a significant step in a broader programme of work to improve the victim statement scheme and will ensure that victims have a meaningful voice in all solemn proceedings. Ensuring that victims are given a meaningful voice in our criminal justice system is a fundamental step towards a more compassionate and trauma-informed approach, so I urge the Parliament to support amendment 39. Scottish ministers already have powers to pilot different ways in which a victim statement can be made.”
“With the bill going through the Parliament at the same time, it was great to be able to collaborate with another member and the Government to introduce this change, which will enable more people to make a statement, at their discretion. I have issues with Sharon Dowey’s amendment 104 because, having looked at it carefully, the drafting does not seem to me to give discretion and choice. The Parliament should vote for amendment 39 to enable more constituents, if they want to, to have their victim impact statements read and heard, so that the effect that a crime has had on them is understood by the person who is being tried in the case. For all those reasons, and to help our constituents, including my constituent Lesley, I urge the Parliament to support amendment 39.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Jamie Greene’s amendment 39. I acknowledge and am grateful for the engagement with him, his team and the Scottish Government. The issue of victim impact statements is important for all our constituents who are affected by crime. It was brought to my attention in particular by one of my constituents, Lesley—I should be clear that I have permission to say their first name. Lesley, who came to see me at my surgery, expressed concern that, in their situation, the person who was convicted of a crime against them did not hear from the court process the effect that the crime had on Lesley’s life.”
“It is a fact that, because of our demographics and our low birth rates, we need to bring more working-age people here. They enrich our communities. At the moment, the issue is completely reserved, but there are solutions to be found. While we continue to consider how Scotland could build a different migration system, let us embrace the long tradition of giving a warm and heartfelt Scottish welcome and shaking people’s hands as they arrive in our communities. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The final speaker in the open debate is Paul Sweeney, who joins us remotely. 16:45”
“I am passionate about the benefits of immigration, as members can probably hear. However, I also agree that, although people are welcome, we need to have a controlled system. It is not controversial to say that—every country has that. We, as a party, have always been clear about membership of the European Union and a points- based system. That was the position in 2014, and it is a serious position. If boats were landing here in Scotland, we would of course need a system to manage that. However, there is a broader question that goes beyond the level of inward migration and what that would mean for Scotland. We need to give thoughtful, sensitive and rational consideration to the reality of the situation, without it being taboo, which is that we need to bring more people to Scotland.”
“I have thought about it deeply, particularly as the MSP for Leith— a port, and an area that has welcomed people for decades, whether it is the Irish in the 19th century, Italians, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th, or, more recently, people from Poland, Ukraine, America, China and elsewhere, all of whom have added to our community and adopted a sense of being proudly Scottish. Let us be clear that the vast majority of people who come here are very positive contributors— that is a fact. Economically, they are net contributors and, socially, they bring something to our communities, creating multicultural and intercultural diversity, with minorities adding to and embracing a strong and inclusive collective Scottish culture. That is what our new Scots do in the vast majority of cases.”
“Let us also remember that a lot of the people who are coming to our shores, and to other parts of Europe, are moving away from places that we bear responsibility for damaging: Iraq, Afghanistan and many others. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of those who come here, and think about how it must feel to leave somewhere, travel across continents and then arrive and be subject to a system that is often extremely difficult to cope with, mentally and psychologically. I recognise and respect the fact that immigration is an important issue for my constituents and people elsewhere in Scotland.”
“When internet use became more prevalent and social media emerged, many of us thought that that would help to bring us closer together, as human beings, both here and around the world. Unfortunately, on many occasions—we are seeing a lot of this in our communities now— such technology is used by bad-faith actors to drive wedges between communities and create fear. Fear of immigration has always caused much more damage than any sort of immigration ever could. People focus on the bad examples—the minority of stories—where there has been a case that has negatively affected a community, rather than on amplifying the huge and massively positive contribution that thousands of individuals have made when they have gone to other countries, throughout the pages of history and in recent times.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes with deep concern the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast of a £4.7 billion funding gap in 2029-30; recognises that without the Union dividend of £2,578 per person there would be a substantial deficit, with Scotland’s 2024-25 net fiscal balancing standing at -£26.5 billion (-11.7% of GDP); regrets that the Scottish Government continues to dismiss these realities and prioritise constitutional campaigning over sound financial management; calls for urgent measures to restore credibility to Scotland’s finances, including a full multi-year spending review to identify priorities, savings, and reform needs, a strategy to cap welfare spending growth, which is currently consuming a significant amount of resource growth, and create jobs by moving more people into work through reskilling and apprenticeships, a focus on productivity and economic growth to broaden Scotland’s tax base by allowing businesses to thrive, and a robust public service reform and stronger Audit Scotland oversight to deliver better value; believes that the Parliament must focus on NHS waiting times, education standards, and community safety rather than fiscal denialism, and resolves that Scotland’s future depends on fiscal discipline, growth, and accountable government within the United Kingdom.”
“Only by allowing private sector businesses to thrive, thereby expanding the economy, will we see more better-paid jobs created and greater tax revenues generated to fund the public services that we all need. In conclusion, it is clear that the SNP is clueless about how to address the enormous financial black hole that it has created. Only the Scottish Conservatives have the ideas to tackle the issue. That is the point that is made in our motion today, which I am pleased to move.”
“Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member will be concluding shortly. Murdo Fraser: I apologise to Mr Macpherson. Thirdly, we need proper public service reform to see where savings can be made. Mr McKee promises that he can find £1 billion-worth of backroom savings in Government departments, although we have yet to see a detailed plan for that, and private correspondence that was released following freedom of information requests suggests that his ideas have been met with something other than enthusiasm by his cabinet secretary. However, doing that would be, at least, a start, and we encourage Mr McKee to do that good work on our behalf. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we need a proper focus on productivity and economic growth to broaden Scotland’s tax base.”
“Yes, we will talk about hope; yes, we will talk about how we can make things better; and yes, we will talk about the constitution being relevant in that space. More and more people are seeing independence as the space in which Scotland would be able to achieve its full potential. More and more, it is becoming the settled will. Those who dismiss it as an aspiration—those who dismiss statehood—need to remember that they are talking about 50 per cent of the people we represent. Their opinions matter and, very soon, the question will be what the Opposition and Westminster are going to do to facilitate their will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We come to the closing speeches. 16:44”
“Members talked about redirecting wealth from renewables into communities, but energy policy is reserved. That is why the constitution and more powers matter. Members talked about poverty alleviation. Imagine if we did not have to spend money on mitigating the two-child cap and the bedroom tax. Imagine if we could make all the welfare policy in Scotland in a more sensible and thoughtful way, to reduce poverty even further. Of course, we are making good progress compared with elsewhere in the UK, as has already been said. So much more could be said about why the constitution matters. As much as the Opposition and others want to chip away and tear things down, I can feel that a resistant optimism is developing in Scotland. I am proud that the SNP Government is part of the pushback against negativity.”
“They talk as if the Labour Government had done everything perfectly over the years, when we all know that that is not the case. There is so much more that we can do, but we need to do it together and to be honest. For example, on the NHS, the Opposition makes criticism, but we should think about what we could do if we had a migration policy in Scotland, or about how things would be better if we had not been taken out of the EU against our will. When it comes to the economy, imagine if we could reverse or had not had the national insurance increase, or could do more with VAT to support the hospitality sector, or more with other aspects of the taxation system. That would help us to make a difference. That is why the constitution matters. Another example is energy.”
“Those who are just trying to talk our country down and to chip away at our society will be absolutely delighted by what the Opposition parties have put to the Parliament today, because it is empty—there are no ideas. Anas Sarwar, you may shake your head— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You must speak through the chair. Ben Macpherson: Pardon me, Presiding Officer. If Anas Sarwar gets to his feet later this week, he should come out with some constructive solutions. When members of the Opposition parties speak, they talk as if Scotland already had all the powers of an independent nation. They talk as if a Conservative Government had not made disastrous decisions for many years. They talk as if a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had not put this country into the worst austerity in Europe in the 21st century.”
“I did not hear any praise for our remarkable police force and the fact that it managed all those events—and a presidential visit and a vice-presidential visit— extremely well. I did not hear any comment about the fact that the standard for waiting times has been met for the third time in a row, as was announced today. I did not hear about NHS Scotland’s five-year high for operations, with a record number of hip and knee replacements being performed by our NHS. As the First Minister said, there is more to do, but much has been achieved. Given all the challenge in our country, we need to get to a position in which people can look to this place and see people speaking with passion about ideas to make things better and being constructive about what has been done well.”
“We all know that the people we represent are experiencing tough times, and they expect us to do what we were sent here to do, which is to come up with ways that will make a difference for them. That is exactly what the First Minister set out to Parliament and what the Scottish Government is focused on. There are challenges, but there are multiple successes to be welcomed, too. I did not hear any Opposition MSP mention the really good results that our school pupils achieved across the country, or the fact that more people from less privileged backgrounds are going to university. I did not hear them say that we had a remarkable summer of culture and festivities—in particular, here in the capital, where people poured in from around the world and spoke positively about our country thereafter.”
“Coming into Parliament today after a long recess, it was even more striking to me—as I am sure it was to colleagues—just what a privilege it is to come and be able to speak and express ourselves in this place on behalf of those we serve. They expect us to bring solutions and positive vision, especially at a time when, as the First Minister said, we are 25 years into this Parliament’s history, a quarter of the way into the 21st century and in a period of multiple challenges at home and across the world. I am therefore—honestly—dismayed and shocked at the absolute lack of depth of solutions from Opposition members. When I listened to both Opposition leaders speaking, I did not hear one idea, one worked-out policy or one thing that was constructive.”
“We cannot afford another SNP Government of excuses and U-turns. We need a Government of delivery, which will come only with a Scottish Labour Government. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The final speaker in the open debate will be Ben Macpherson. 16:38”
“If we are to see a fair transition, we need good- quality jobs in Scotland now. There was such an irony in John Swinney saying that his Government does not have the powers that it needs, given the massive missed opportunities for our renewables with ScotWind—the opportunities to create more jobs in our communities and the opportunities for community, co-operative or municipally owned heat and power companies. We need to see the recommendations of the Just Transition Commission being acted on. We need action in the north-east and action on our ports and harbours. The SNP promised to create 130,000 green jobs, but that has not happened. It has not created a publicly owned energy system, but we can see GB Energy getting on with the job. We need investment in community energy projects.”
“It makes no sense to close Marionville fire station, which is just over a mile from this Parliament and is in an area where there are 3,500 new homes. There are also major developments at Leith port, and Marionville is the station that is responsible for tackling fires in Holyrood park. Closing Marionville would leave families and businesses more exposed to risk. It makes no sense to close that station. It is another example of SNP Government cuts not delivering the services that our constituents urgently need. We need a Government that is focused on delivery, not one that wastes its money through bad decision making. The failed national care service wasted millions but did not create a single job, and there has been a lack of jobs being created on ferries and buses and in renewables.”
“It is horrific to see what is happening across Europe— in Greece, Spain and Portugal—but we are also seeing wildfires here in Scotland. This summer, a fire burned for several days in Uphall in West Lothian. Last month, we had a serious fire in Holyrood park that lasted for days. It is thought that the fire was the result of human activity, and we need to raise awareness of risk, but awareness alone is not enough. People also need to know that their emergency services will be there for them when disaster strikes. That is why we need the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be properly resourced to deal with the new risks of fires and flooding. Rural and urban communities need more community capacity, not cuts, because the time that it takes for firefighters to arrive can make the difference between life and death.”
“The climate targets were dumped because the SNP had not done the heavy lifting to meet them. The climate emergency is not abstract. It is impacting on people’s lives now. Flooding is disrupting rail services and damaging people’s homes and communities. Last week, a damning report from Audit Scotland warned that the Scottish Government is failing to allocate the investment that is needed to make our communities safe from flooding. Over the past decade, costs have trebled. Local authorities now need clarity and certainty on funding, because the risk of flooding is increasing due to extreme weather. Coastal communities are vulnerable, as are homes on flood plains and beside rivers. There are 280,000 homes in Scotland that are currently at risk. There is also the growing risk of wildfires.”
“Màiri McAllan, the cabinet secretary, is not in the chamber, but it is important to put on the record that she did actually respond by saying that there would be targeted spending in areas of high pressure, such as Edinburgh. Sarah Boyack: Yes, but we did not get the targets or the accountability. For years, there has been a lack of building, which means that people are leaving the city and going to East Lothian, Midlothian or West Lothian because they simply cannot afford housing in the city. That lack of affordable housing means that rents have been rocketing and are simply unaffordable. We need urgent action, but we did not get the detailed financial commitments that we needed to hear today, and that is deeply disappointing. I want to focus on the climate emergency.”
“Màiri McAllan: A number of the pots of additional funding that the Government has released in response to the emergency have been directed to the local authorities that have the most sustained temporary accommodation and homelessness pressures. It is my intention that a number of the pots that have been announced today will continue to do that, and I will work with COSLA and local authorities on that. On the general point, the Scottish Government agreed with the recommendation of the housing investment task force, which published its report in June, that housing should be recognised as critical infrastructure. I hope that Ben Macpherson, in reviewing what is contained in the statement today, will see that I have brought that to bear in the commitments made.”
“The housing emergency has been decades in the making, since Thatcherism, and it is the biggest issue for millennials and those younger than that. Therefore, I warmly welcome the significant investment that the Scottish Government has announced today. Does the cabinet secretary agree that both private and public spending on house building is an investment in our national infrastructure, and that we need to approach it with that mindset and focus on quality of build so that we create new buildings that last for many decades? Will the investment that has been announced be targeted in areas with the most pressure on the housing system, such as here in the capital city?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of holiday hub provision for children with disabilities and additional support needs in the city of Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland. (S6O- 04863)”
“Ivan McKee: As I have said, we want to provide accommodation for students, and PBSA takes pressure off the private rented sector and other parts of the market. However, as I have indicated, local authorities already have the power to identify areas where they feel that further development would undermine residential amenity and to build that into their local development plans. Planning is, of course, delegated to local authorities in that regard. Local Road User Charging Schemes 3.”
“We want to support our students and welcome those from abroad, but it is time to signal to purpose-built student accommodation developers that their plans are increasingly unwelcome in communities such as the one that I represent. In my constituency and in Edinburgh as a whole, there is increasing concern about the amount of purpose-built student accommodation that is being built in our capital city, especially when there is an acute housing emergency. In many instances, PBSA extracts money out of Scotland, sometimes into tax havens, and uses up valuable urban land where normal housing should be built instead. Therefore, I urge the Scottish Government to work with the City of Edinburgh Council to restrict future PBSA development, if possible, because it often involves corporate exploitation of students and Scotland’s urban land.”
“It is still bitterly disappointing that we have not had, in this session, the groundbreaking legislation that we were promised, but we in the Scottish Greens, at least, will not rest until that has been achieved. Thanks to people such as Emma Ritch, the groundwork has been done, and it will be tragic if we do not continue to build on that groundwork with renewed energies. The women and girls of Scotland need us to do just that. 16:17”
“We face wars and preparation for more war; brutal cuts to the livelihoods of the poorest; a situation in which priority is given to economic growth at all costs, with no care for distribution; the rhetoric and reality of punitive immigration controls; the normalisation of killing thousands of children by swift or slow violence; the myth that climate change is controllable through technology alone; and the replacement of male accountability with misogyny and transphobia. However, we know how to counter all those things and how to live, speak and act with integrity, intelligence, solidarity and compassion. Scotland has been a leader in human rights, and it can be again.”
“We must be better at understanding the multiple overlapping and interconnected identities and factors that affect whether women and girls are able to survive and thrive. In his foreword to the report, the First Minister wrote about the “political headwinds” that threaten our progress on gender equality. He is absolutely right, as Clare Haughey highlighted. We are in a very different context from the one in which Nicola Sturgeon founded the initiative, but that is no reason to give up, to lose hope or to diminish the scale or the radicalism of our ambition.”
“If women could access the level of funded childcare that was recommended—50 hours a week for children from six months of age—their opportunities for earning, career progression and family wellbeing would be utterly transformed. The impact that that would have on our poverty levels cannot be overstated. We have heard about the devastating impact on the lives of not only women but their families and wider communities of unequal or absent access to, and misogyny in, our healthcare, justice, education and other public service systems, on which we should all be able to rely. However, it has been heartening to hear the clear majority call for recognition that gender policy coherence will not work without intersectionality.”
“In the meantime, important and imaginative work has been done. For example, although we are barred from legislating for quotas, the funding of Elect Her and the Engender equal representation project, alongside support for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has opened up the potential for political representation by and for many more women and non-binary people in Scotland. Like Rona Mackay, I am glad to be part of the gender-sensitive Parliament advisory group, which is looking for further opportunities to improve the diversity of representation that we have in our politics. Of course, gaps remain, some of which are wide and gaping. The difference between the funded childcare that is currently offered to families and that which was recommended by the council is immense.”
“We have heard many thoughtful reflections from members about aspects of the council’s work—its recommendations, its achievements and, of course, the regrettable gaps and shortfalls. In her foreword to the report, Shirley-Anne Somerville acknowledged that “the pace of change can feel frustratingly slow.” I think that many members share that frustration. Although it is, of course, important to move forward with care and consultation, sometimes the sense of urgency seems to be lost in successive changes or stages that never quite reach their objective. The first example in the report of the proposed “What Works?” institute illustrates that tendency. We recognise the limits that are imposed by the devolution settlement—there are yet more examples of why we need the full powers of a normal country.”
“We have enough work to do as things are, so let us continue to make progress and think together, between now and the 16 days of activism in November, about what more we can do, as MSPs in our communities and with other stakeholders in our country, to challenge the bad attitudes of a minority of men and boys, and to change those social attitudes in our communities and in our society. It is good to be working with colleagues on this issue. I am proud to support the advisory council in its work and the Government in progressing that. I hope that, when we come back from the recess, we can think about what more we can do. I look forward to supporting the Government in its endeavours. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:13 Maggie Chapman: I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens.”
“I am glad of and support the elevated steps that we have seen and would expect from central Government to deal with the issue of the very small but growing minority of young men who are engaging in extremely challenging and worrying behaviour, including in my constituency. Their behaviour, which could impact other young men around them, includes the spreading of harmful messages about and attitudes to women and girls, and has the potential to have a really damaging effect on our communities, not just in the short to medium term, but beyond that, into the years and decades ahead. An urgent and strong response on how we support men and boys to make better choices, and how we deal with those who are making bad choices, is really important, because we do not want to go backwards.”