18.3.09
10.3.09
8.3.09
Johann's speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference
Johann Lamont
Deputy Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament with special responsibility for Equalities
Speech to the conference
Chair, Conference,
Working together – driven by our common desire to deliver a fairer society driven by equality, justice and opportunity for all.
Tough times past year.
Particularly defeat in Glasgow East despite Margaret Curran at her formidable best.
I have every confidence she will win that seat back for Labour at the next election.
Colin Smyth was right.
Glenrothes marked fightback.
Fight taken by Labour Party members to the SNP forcing them to take responsbility for their actions in government.
But it did seem that the message which came from electorate in Glasgow East was that while we sought power, we sought power for its own sake.
We need to reassert our determination that we seek power for a purpose.
That government at every level can and must make use of the power at its disposal to make a difference for individuals, families and communities. In these difficult times we need to be clear.
Equalities is not an add on for when the times are good.
Tackling discrimination is not just for when the sun shines.
And ensuring safe working conditions, fair pay and equal pay are not a bonus but are at the core of our economic strategy.
Across all levels of government we need:• action to support vulnerable children, • action to support carers• action to reach out to women facing violence in their own homes• action to create safer communities free from anti social behaviour and the bullying and intimidation that goes with it.
All these and many more remain critical to government action in tacking poverty, disadvantage and discrimination and are part of our strategy as much tackling the banks.
We do not think as Alex Salmond does that you can separate economic policy from social policy.
That you can as he does, support Thatcher’s economic policy but have a problem with its social consequences.
As if you can support an economic strategy that closed the pits but wring your hands at the consequences for mining villages across Scotland.
There can be danger in these tough economic times that we can be overwhelmed by the technicalities of tackling the recession.
We know that our Labour government is grasping and understanding these technicalities.
But we as a party and in government will never forget who could be the greatest casualties of this recession.
The UK government is addressing issues of regulation, global change and providing huge commitment to supporting the economy.
But it is also a government which understands the needs of communities at these times.
25 years ago Thatcher unleashed the power of the state against mining commmunities.
Today I’m proud that a Labour government uses its powers to support those facing the consequences of recession, to protect families, not destroy them.
We need to work in partnership with business to address issues of apprenticeships and training, but not as the SNP has done and hand a bonus to businesses without even a dialogue about providing opportunities for people in the communities they serve.
And while in northern Ireland and in Wales, there is energy and creativity in looking at what can be done to support economic activity, the SNP wavers between silence and gimmick – and it took Labour to force through its budget discussions the SNP to act on apprenticeships and providing certainty for young people at times of great uncertainty.
Of course in addressing need and disadvantage the Scottish Parliament has a critical role.
And it’s a role almost entirely ignored by the SNP in government.
As we watch the SNP ditch its manifesto promises one by one, it has been remarked at how untroubled the SNP leadership is and how silent their backbenchers.
But we made a simple mistake.
We thought they might have meant it.
The reality is that the SNP manifesto was how the SNP secured power, not about what the SNP planned to do in power.
The promise making and the promise breaking were simply a cynical necessity to secure power and it is that cynicism which underpins its failures now.
For while the decks are cleared of the promises, the core drive for separation remains.
The SNP ignores issues of equality, has through the Concordat abandoned responsibility for ensuring equal access to services across Scotland, does not track and monitor how money is spent and has the audacity to claim that their core decisions on prescription charges, hospital parking, school meals and tax cuts make up an anti poverty strategy.
The fact is that commitment to equality should not just shape your electoral rhetoric but shape your budgets too.
When people fought for a Scottish Parliament and when Labour in power had the courage to decentralise and create the Scottish Parliament we did not imagine that a parliament which was created to support people in difficult times should be expected to stand as a spectator while SNP ministers exercise power in their own party interest.
We could not have imagined that rather than use the powers of the parliament to address need, the parliament would be used as a platform for separatism.
For the truth is, the SNP will never strain every sinew and use every power at its disposal in the interests of the people of Scotland for its purpose is to create the conditions for separation.
It will not make the Scottish Parliament as part of the United Kingdom work now for the people of Scotland because it does not want it to work. Full stop.
And when facing a choice between acting to improve the chances of people in Scotland or to improve the SNP’s political chances
To choose between a fix and a fight for the SNP there is no contest.
But we too have a challenge.
As a campaigning party and a thinking party we need to work with those in our communities who are living with the failures of the SNP government to expose and oppose their deceit in claiming they are a progessive party and to do all we can to force the Scottish Government to address those needs and that is what we strive to do in the Scottish Parliament.
But we must also work with these individuals, groups and communities in shaping our policies for the future.
For an active party, working with those who understand and experience disadvantage in their daily lives and know what needs to change to improve their lives, we begin to shape our plans for the next Scottish Parliament elections and for what in government we need to do.
Deputy Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament with special responsibility for Equalities
Speech to the conference
Chair, Conference,
Working together – driven by our common desire to deliver a fairer society driven by equality, justice and opportunity for all.
Tough times past year.
Particularly defeat in Glasgow East despite Margaret Curran at her formidable best.
I have every confidence she will win that seat back for Labour at the next election.
Colin Smyth was right.
Glenrothes marked fightback.
Fight taken by Labour Party members to the SNP forcing them to take responsbility for their actions in government.
But it did seem that the message which came from electorate in Glasgow East was that while we sought power, we sought power for its own sake.
We need to reassert our determination that we seek power for a purpose.
That government at every level can and must make use of the power at its disposal to make a difference for individuals, families and communities. In these difficult times we need to be clear.
Equalities is not an add on for when the times are good.
Tackling discrimination is not just for when the sun shines.
And ensuring safe working conditions, fair pay and equal pay are not a bonus but are at the core of our economic strategy.
Across all levels of government we need:• action to support vulnerable children, • action to support carers• action to reach out to women facing violence in their own homes• action to create safer communities free from anti social behaviour and the bullying and intimidation that goes with it.
All these and many more remain critical to government action in tacking poverty, disadvantage and discrimination and are part of our strategy as much tackling the banks.
We do not think as Alex Salmond does that you can separate economic policy from social policy.
That you can as he does, support Thatcher’s economic policy but have a problem with its social consequences.
As if you can support an economic strategy that closed the pits but wring your hands at the consequences for mining villages across Scotland.
There can be danger in these tough economic times that we can be overwhelmed by the technicalities of tackling the recession.
We know that our Labour government is grasping and understanding these technicalities.
But we as a party and in government will never forget who could be the greatest casualties of this recession.
The UK government is addressing issues of regulation, global change and providing huge commitment to supporting the economy.
But it is also a government which understands the needs of communities at these times.
25 years ago Thatcher unleashed the power of the state against mining commmunities.
Today I’m proud that a Labour government uses its powers to support those facing the consequences of recession, to protect families, not destroy them.
We need to work in partnership with business to address issues of apprenticeships and training, but not as the SNP has done and hand a bonus to businesses without even a dialogue about providing opportunities for people in the communities they serve.
And while in northern Ireland and in Wales, there is energy and creativity in looking at what can be done to support economic activity, the SNP wavers between silence and gimmick – and it took Labour to force through its budget discussions the SNP to act on apprenticeships and providing certainty for young people at times of great uncertainty.
Of course in addressing need and disadvantage the Scottish Parliament has a critical role.
And it’s a role almost entirely ignored by the SNP in government.
As we watch the SNP ditch its manifesto promises one by one, it has been remarked at how untroubled the SNP leadership is and how silent their backbenchers.
But we made a simple mistake.
We thought they might have meant it.
The reality is that the SNP manifesto was how the SNP secured power, not about what the SNP planned to do in power.
The promise making and the promise breaking were simply a cynical necessity to secure power and it is that cynicism which underpins its failures now.
For while the decks are cleared of the promises, the core drive for separation remains.
The SNP ignores issues of equality, has through the Concordat abandoned responsibility for ensuring equal access to services across Scotland, does not track and monitor how money is spent and has the audacity to claim that their core decisions on prescription charges, hospital parking, school meals and tax cuts make up an anti poverty strategy.
The fact is that commitment to equality should not just shape your electoral rhetoric but shape your budgets too.
When people fought for a Scottish Parliament and when Labour in power had the courage to decentralise and create the Scottish Parliament we did not imagine that a parliament which was created to support people in difficult times should be expected to stand as a spectator while SNP ministers exercise power in their own party interest.
We could not have imagined that rather than use the powers of the parliament to address need, the parliament would be used as a platform for separatism.
For the truth is, the SNP will never strain every sinew and use every power at its disposal in the interests of the people of Scotland for its purpose is to create the conditions for separation.
It will not make the Scottish Parliament as part of the United Kingdom work now for the people of Scotland because it does not want it to work. Full stop.
And when facing a choice between acting to improve the chances of people in Scotland or to improve the SNP’s political chances
To choose between a fix and a fight for the SNP there is no contest.
But we too have a challenge.
As a campaigning party and a thinking party we need to work with those in our communities who are living with the failures of the SNP government to expose and oppose their deceit in claiming they are a progessive party and to do all we can to force the Scottish Government to address those needs and that is what we strive to do in the Scottish Parliament.
But we must also work with these individuals, groups and communities in shaping our policies for the future.
For an active party, working with those who understand and experience disadvantage in their daily lives and know what needs to change to improve their lives, we begin to shape our plans for the next Scottish Parliament elections and for what in government we need to do.
4.3.09
Scottish Labour Party conference, Dundee 6th. - 8th. March
Scottish Labour Party conference guide : http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/conference2009
Dundee Labour conference website : http://www.dundeelabour.com
23.2.09
Ministerial changes Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
One of the few pleasures of being in opposition is spectating as the Government party experiences a reshuffle and watching its impact on the selected individuals who have lost their jobs, on those who have gained the exciting opportunity that ministerial office presents and, of course, on those who have doggedly sought preferment but been disappointed.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Housing Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
It is important for members to discuss housing and to end the Government's obsession with assertion over action.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
Human Trafficking Speech in the Scottish Parliament 05 February 2009
I begin by acknowledging the contribution of the Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, to ensuring that the subject has remained a political issue.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)