Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that the witnesses have already answered some of my questions, which are around training and competency. Just to be clear, there are voluntary standards, which we have been told will support regulation and improve safety, and I wonder whether you think that they will do that. Alternatively, do you think that we need to have mandatory training qualifications?

I thank my colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am delighted that I will be joining the Parliament’s 2026 disability summit, which is mentioned in the motion; I am looking forward to working with the young people who will be co-chairing the sessions.

I will, if I may, start by talking a little bit about my colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is an inspiration not only to me, but, I know, to many others in the chamber. My colleague, who is sitting beside me, has worked tirelessly throughout her career on this cause, and I know that she will continue to fight for the rights and wellbeing of disabled people.

If there is one thing that I have learned about Pam Duncan-Glancy, it is that she has plenty of fight. She and others, such as Karen Adam’s father, have faced challenges and barriers that I cannot even imagine. She has shared those experiences with us in the chamber, and across the community, to ensure that the voices of many disabled people can be heard. She is generous with her time on these issues and shows great determination to change the trajectory for every disabled person that she can.

Over my five years in Parliament, I have realised that Pam Duncan-Glancy is a great ally and wonderful friend. She is also very funny and—I probably should not say this, Deputy Presiding Officer—we have had very many laughs and funny moments just sitting here in the chamber beside each other.

However, I want to make the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy is a very able parliamentarian. If we can bring more people with her experiences and background to Parliament, to professional jobs and to a whole variety of workplaces, we will have a far healthier and happier economy and society, and much better public service provision. I say that not just to talk up my friend, but to say to society that if we can make changes, we will all benefit. Disabled people should be our friends, neighbours and work colleagues. That would benefit us all.

Despite knowing how valuable disabled people are to our society, however, we know that the true picture—as we heard from Alexander Stewart—is that they face restrictions and their opportunities are often taken away. The employment rate for disabled people has been consistently lower than the rate for non-disabled people. People who are recorded as having additional support needs are less likely to achieve the qualifications that they should, and when they leave school, they are less likely to have a positive destination. We know that poverty rates remain much higher among households where someone has a disability. That is unacceptable, and we must continue to fight it.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that if someone has a disability, the inequalities that they face are more likely to be exacerbated. People with disabilities have the right to work and to be part of our society, and it is incumbent on Government to ensure that the world of work is a welcoming and suitably adjusted environment. The Equality Act 2010 offers disabled people a lot of protection from workplace discrimination, but in order to ensure that that protection is realised, the Government must take the issue seriously. I am sure that we will hear the Minister for Equalities, in her closing remarks, speak about how we must continue to push to ensure that the 2010 act is complied with.

We must allocate resources and ensure that education and workplace projects are properly funded. We need to see much better representation of disabled people across society: in our media, our public services and our representative bodies. I hope that, as a result, other people will have the great privilege of meeting great work colleagues and friends, just like we in Parliament have in Pam Duncan-Glancy.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this debate for Labour. I thank the Government for bringing the motion to the chamber—it is very welcome at this time—and I thank members for speaking on such an important issue.

Although the theme of this year’s 16 days of activism asks us to unite to end digital violence against all women and girls, recent statistics remind us that violence against women and girls remains far too common right across society—many members mentioned that this evening. Whether through domestic violence, sexual harassment or rampant misogyny, women continue to be the target of far too many men’s terrible behaviour and aggression.

As we have heard in the debate, that is in many ways magnified in the digital world. The cabinet secretary pointed out that boys’ viewing of warped behaviour online can have an effect on them for life. Katy Clark as well as others mentioned that the digital world is being taken over by the far right, which is pushing messages to our young men. We have a responsibility to do all that we can to combat that.

I have to clearly say that digital abuse, including trolling, stalking and other forms of technologically facilitated violence against women and girls, really worries me. If I am honest, I do not think that we fully understand all the aspects of it.

The debate has raised challenges that we face. We have heard that digital violence changes so rapidly that it always seems to be one step ahead of legislators. However, if we cannot understand how serious that issue is today and address the complexities of regulation of our digital world and, at the same time, address the root cause of violence against women, we need to think about what we are doing in this place.

We have heard about how difficult it is to legislate in this area and about the importance of working across all spheres of government, and with companies, communities and individuals. The message of today’s debate is that we must do so. We know that the work is challenging, but we must commit to join together—to unite, as the motion says—because this opportunity to change the trajectory is too important to miss.

I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is working with the UK Government on the Online Safety Act 2023, and I hope that it will continue to do that. If the Governments in Scotland, the UK and Europe work together, it will be a big step forward, because that is the only way that we will be able to tackle the issue.

A big step towards changing the trajectory will be exposing the parts of our society that are apologists for the normalisation of that violence, many of which are key elements of the establishment. Many people in the digital world seem to think that gender-based violence is normal, but we know that it is not inherent. The truth is that it is learned and nurtured through stereotypes, misogyny, bias and ingrained inequalities.

I thank Stuart McMillan for his contribution, in which he talked about his daughters and about the fact that we also need to talk to our sons, our brothers, our husbands and other men. Paul McLennan has spoken on that issue before, and I know that he is very passionate about it. Rhoda Grant and Ash Regan mentioned work that has been done on online pimping. Pimping websites, which are easy to find, exploit vulnerable women, and legislation has just not kept up with the sexual exploitation of women. The wording in those members’ contributions told us that women are “trafficked” and are seen as “products”. We need to ask the Government to bring Parliament together to discuss what we can do about that.

I also want to raise the issue of porn and its normalisation in the lives of young men. Of course, porn is accessed both offline and online, but research and work with young men shows that extreme forms of porn tend to be accessed in the digital world. During my five years in Parliament, I have heard from women who research that area. The issue is often not tackled, perhaps because it is uncomfortable to do so and there is the feeling that we cannot change it, but we must endeavour to do just that. Porn is not acceptable and it is not normal, and we should be saying that to young men. They need to be educated, and online porn has to be tackled. I have heard from young women who say that it can be used to degrade them and make them feel violated. As Michelle Thomson clearly pinpointed, exposure to such things at an early age distorts some of our sexual relationships throughout our lives.

Members mentioned the manipulation of porn and online content. It is true to say that women bear the brunt of online manipulation in the digital world, and society has a responsibility to challenge the industry and those behaviours. As parliamentarians, we must provide adequate resources to tackle that injustice.

I want to mention the equally safe model, which is of course welcome, but it is fair to ask the cabinet secretary how we might be able to develop it further and make it work. Many members mentioned that it is not currently working and that not all schools have picked up on it. Some cross-parliamentary and cross-portfolio work on that would be really welcome.

There is much to be done, but I hope that, by coming together today in the Parliament, we can unite and change the trajectory of violence against women in Scotland and across the world.

That is helpful—thank you.

I have one more question, which is about the focus on physical disability and whether mental and behavioural disorders are picked up in the way that they should be. Do you have any feedback on that?

I will explore some of the points that you made about inconsistency. The report describes stakeholder views that ADP decisions can appear inconsistent. A couple of constituents have raised issues with timescales for redeterminations, appeals at the First-tier Tribunal and challenges around that. People I have been speaking to have wondered about inconsistent decision making. Did you get much of that in producing the report?

Audit Scotland has recommended defining acceptable levels of client satisfaction. Can that be done in a way that provides meaningful opportunities for improvement and which avoids arbitrary target setting?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the financial sustainability of Ayrshire College. (S6O-05213)

Forecasts show that most colleges are not sustainable. Ayrshire College is facing a £2.1 million reduction in core teaching funding, over and above a 20 per cent real-terms cut since 2021-22. That huge blow means that the college is already having to make difficult decisions. Does the Government recognise that, and that it must work urgently with the college and its trade unions to address its funding challenges and ensure that we secure and protect jobs, alongside young people’s education?

Data released only yesterday revealed that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has the third lowest rate of child dentist registrations in Scotland. Significant inequalities exist, with more than a 10 per cent gap between children living in the most and least deprived areas. Why are children in Dumfries and Galloway considerably worse off when it comes to registration? What is the Government’s response to that inequality, and what action will it take to address it?

I thank Michelle Thomson for bringing the debate to the chamber; I am pleased to speak in it. I acknowledge the work of the cross-party group on St Andrew’s day and the people who continue to run that group, as others have mentioned.

The motion highlights the on-going work of the former MP and MSP Dennis Canavan to ensure that St Andrew’s day continues to be an important day that recognises our patron saint. He took forward the campaign to make it a bank holiday to be enjoyed by everyone.

As a proud Scot, I believe that it is really nice, and important, that we—like many countries around the world—celebrate our patron saint as part of celebrating our history, our culture and our country. When I was young, I had family who lived abroad for many years, and they enjoyed St Andrew’s day and saw it as a great opportunity to invite international friends over to enjoy and celebrate Scotland. The real wonder was in people from cultures from around the world enjoying one another’s culture; that was so important to them.

St Andrew is both Scotland’s patron saint and our national symbol, officially recognised—as others have said—in the 1320 declaration of Arbroath. The relationship is represented by the saltire flag, with the blue-and-white X-shaped cross symbolising the way in which St Andrew was martyred. In addition, as the motion states, we need to acknowledge

“the economic benefits that global recognition brings to Scotland through the culture, business, education, tourism and retail sectors, supported by the use of the Saltire as both the national flag and the ‘Brand Scotland’ identifier of Scottish produce and marketing”.

We see that in Scotland, and I am sure that others will often see it when they are abroad. People will notice our flag in shops and retail outlets, wherever they go. We have great relationships around the world.

St Andrew’s day is recognised and celebrated around the world by people who believe that they have a connection to Scotland. They are known as the Scottish diaspora. The diaspora consists of Scottish people who emigrated—as we know, we were a great nation for emigrating around the world—and now their descendants, whose number is estimated to be anything between 30 million and 40 million people.

I know that, in my South Scotland region, there is plenty going on this week to celebrate St Andrew’s day. That includes traditional events such as ceilidhs, and a mixture of others involving important history and institutions. In my area, the local Burns club is having an evening event to celebrate the day, and there is even karaoke. I am sure that those who are attending are very pleased that I will be dealing with amendments later tonight, so I will not be singing in Ayrshire.

In a world where there is such division as there is today, I hope, as we celebrate St Andrew’s day, that—as others have said—we can look beyond the division to a message of hope and unity that we in this country and around the world so desperately need. We know that St Andrew would have hoped for that also.

I thank Michelle Thomson again for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their contributions.