Violence Against Women
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2059, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on violence against women, and one amendment to that motion.
Earlier this month, we debated the serious issue of domestic abuse and its impact on women and children. That debate demonstrated the shared commitment across the chamber to tackling domestic abuse and the need to do all that we can to challenge those men who abuse and to protect people who suffer as a result. During that debate, we set out the Executive's belief that domestic abuse has its foundation in the inequalities between men and women and the abuse of power within a relationship. As long as there is wider acceptance of gender inequality, the task of addressing the issue will be harder.
I know that that is a controversial issue for some. Let me make it clear that two separate matters are involved. We can deal with individual victims of crime, however they present themselves and whatever their needs are, within the justice system. However, if we are going to challenge the issues that cause crime, we will have to examine and understand the patterns that develop.
An issue that has been raised in this regard is that, while we have a problem with domestic abuse, we also have a problem with, for example, knife crime. It is interesting that the very people who were hesitant about the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which sought to prevent youth disorder, address the development of gang culture and challenge young male crime in our communities, are the same people who now do not want to talk specifically about gender-related crime. As we know, we have to understand the pattern of behaviour. In relation to the experience of young men who are the victims of the knife culture that we now live in, we have to recognise that if we do not address the fact that it is young men who carry knives and young men who fall victim to knife crimes, we will not solve that problem either. We should be comfortable debating all issues relating to crime and violence in terms of a proper understanding of what generates them in the first place.
No one should be in any doubt that the struggle for women's equality is real and far from over. Lone parents, the majority of whom are women, struggle to run their households. Women are concentrated in the lowest-paid jobs. Women experience discrimination and harassment in employment. Disabled women, women from ethnic minority communities, older women and lesbian and bisexual women experience multiple discrimination. The pay gap between men and women is 11 per cent, a figure that rises significantly for older women and part-time workers. Women are still not visible in boardrooms, senior management positions or public offices at anything like the levels that they should be.
Women's inequality is still with us. Nowhere is that inequality more marked than in the violence that is perpetrated against women by men.
On this international day for the elimination of violence against women, we are in good company. The United Nations has highlighted the fact that violence against women
"is arguably the world's most prevalent, pervasive and systemic problem. It is a problem without borders, a universal scourge on women and their families that knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth"
and the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, said that it is
"perhaps the most shameful human rights violation."
The UN also states:
"Unless tackled systematically at all levels of society with zero-tolerance policies and a concerted effort by the international community and governments to make it socially unacceptable and a crime, gender-based violence will stall any real progress towards equality, development and peace."
It is right that we mark today—the UN international day for the elimination of violence against women—with a debate in the Scottish Parliament. Across the world, the day of action—as well as the 16 days of action that follow—is recognised by Governments, voluntary organisations, trade unions, local, national and international groups and men and women who support the campaign to highlight the fact that male violence against women is a human rights issue.
We should recognise that that consensus was not always there. It is not that long since the blame for domestic abuse, rape and other sexual assaults on women was somehow laid at the door of women. It was assumed that women had brought that violence upon themselves by the way in which they behaved, the way in which they dressed or the choices that they made about the places in which they lived. That is why the debate on violence against women is important. We should celebrate the fact that there is a growing consensus about the unacceptability of violence against women.
In the debate on 4 November, we stated that domestic abuse is just one aspect of violence against women. There are many others and, as always, the statistics are sobering. We know the figures on domestic abuse: more than 36,000 incidents were reported in 2002 and 11 women died as a result of domestic abuse. Between 1994 and 2003, 237 women were murdered in Scotland—43 per cent by their partners or ex-partners. The total number of male deaths over the same period was higher but, significantly, in 6 per cent of cases the main accused was a partner or ex-partner. Recorded cases of rape and attempted rape increased by 8 per cent to reach 988 in 2003, which is the highest number ever recorded. Those are a few of the reasons why we must act.
Violence against women takes many forms such as prostitution, trafficking, pornography and sexual assault. The Executive and I are aware that there are diverse views on those issues. I hope that through the Parliament and its committees we can address those difficulties where there is not an absolutely right or wrong position but where the issues desperately require to be sorted.
On the subject of female genital mutilation, there has been some comment that that tends to be carried out by women. Does the minister agree that it forms part of the violence against women by men because it is men who require it as part of a tradition?
I recognise the points that Elaine Smith makes and as the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill goes through the Parliament, there will be an opportunity properly to explore those issues further.
The Executive's work in the area of violence against women is at an early stage, but work has begun. Our recent debate on domestic abuse highlighted the progress that has been made during the past few years so I will not repeat those points. It is sufficient to say that the work has been considerable.
The wider violence agenda is at an earlier stage. The national group to address violence against women, which was chaired by Mary Mulligan when she was the Deputy Minister for Communities, last year changed its name, its membership and its remit. It is actively working to set its agenda for the way forward.
One of our first moves was to give support for infrastructure for and delivery of services to women who are experiencing violence.
As part of the review, will the minister be considering male violence against men, and male rape in particular?
The member will be aware that there was a referral to the Scottish Law Commission on the issues of rape and the point that she has raised will be addressed. We look forward to hearing what is said. We abhor rape and sexual assault however it is expressed.
We established a new violence against women service development fund at the end of 2003, and in March we awarded £1.5 million in funding to support 21 projects across Scotland. That funding is designed to improve and extend the services that are offered to women, which have been under-resourced for too long.
We are the first Government department in the United Kingdom to provide direct support to rape crisis centres, radically transforming their ability to serve and support. The £1.96 million that we are giving over the next two years to 10 local rape crisis groups represents a major investment in an area that has traditionally been under-resourced.
We have also provided funding of £100,000 to Rape Crisis Scotland to help it to develop its work, ensuring consistency of service across Scotland. During recent years we have developed close links with Rape Crisis Scotland and the new funding marks a significant investment that will make a real difference on the ground. We have also funded a feasibility study on the establishment of a rape and sexual abuse helpline and £200,000 has been set aside for its future establishment, depending on the study's conclusions. We expect to receive the feasibility report shortly.
In order to determine a more strategic approach to that broader work, the national group agreed to establish an expert committee to consider all the issues that might fall under the heading of violence against women. Although its precise remit is yet to be determined, the committee's role is likely to include agreeing a working definition of "violence against women"; gathering data on the nature and scope of violence against women; identifying gaps in policy, legislation and provision; and agreeing priorities for action. The establishment of that committee marks the commitment and determination of all the organisations and individuals involved to address the challenges ahead and I look forward to working with it during the coming months.
As a contribution to the process, we commissioned a comprehensive review of the literature on violence against women, which was completed in September and is available on the Executive website. From reading the literature review I think that it is very clear that the issues ahead of us are complex, are sometimes controversial and are not easy to solve.
One early priority for the expert committee will be to develop of a working definition of "violence against women". Our starting point is likely to be the definition from the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which states:
"the term ‘violence against women' means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life".
We do not doubt that there will be much discussion on the working definition and on which aspects of women's experience it should include. We are aware that there is not agreement on all issues and that different analyses and approaches are advocated on issues such as pornography, prostitution and lap dancing, but I hope that, as we develop our arguments on those issues, people do not lose sight of the direct experiences of women. We should not become obsessed with definitions at the cost of understanding how violence against women impacts on women's lives.
You have one minute.
I must therefore skip over the many initiatives that the Executive is taking in a wide range of fields, all of which I am sure would gather huge applause from all sides of the chamber.
In conclusion, we recognise the real difference in the way in which women experience violent crime in our communities, although that is not to belittle any victim of other forms of violent crime. It is clear that violence against women takes many forms. I have touched on some of those, but I readily acknowledge that there are others that I have not mentioned. I have set out some of what the Executive is doing and where it hopes to go in the future. I believe that setting our action in a wider context and developing a strategic approach will allow us to move positively towards creating a climate in Scotland in which it is acknowledged that all violence against women is unacceptable. It is the responsibility of us all to challenge the conditions that allow such crime to continue.
I look forward to today's debate to mark the United Nations international day for the elimination of violence against women.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women on 25 November 2004; affirms its commitment to eradicating all forms of violence against women in Scotland; acknowledges the significant funding that has gone into domestic abuse initiatives over the last four years; welcomes the more recent work of the Scottish Executive in setting up the Violence Against Women Service Development Fund and supporting Rape Crisis Scotland and the ten rape crisis centres throughout Scotland, and, noting the complexity of many of the issues involved, supports the Executive's decision to set up an expert committee to support the development of a strategic approach to tackling these issues in future.
I rise to speak to my amendment, but the SNP will also support the motion. I am not sure whether the minister will accept our amendment.
Johann Lamont indicated agreement.
I see the minister nodding and I thank her for the Executive's support.
As the examples in the United Nations declaration make clear, violence against women can take many forms, including psychological, physical, sexual and financial. Such violence is rooted in and reinforces discrimination.
Women in poverty are the ones who find it most difficult to escape abusive circumstances and to exercise even the most basic human rights of freedom of movement and freedom of expression. Such women are trapped and treated as an underclass that is unable to obtain protection from society at large, whose very values often reinforce that societal violence. They are left unable even to access either a criminal justice system to redress the obvious wrongs that are done to them or an education system that would give them the means to articulate those wrongs.
In war, rape and sexual mutilation have been a weapon of terror throughout reported history. Today, the situation is no different, as women throughout many countries are the living victims of such brutality. The evidence of that is apparent in their wounds, both physical and emotional, in the children they have conceived and in the AIDS that they have contracted because of such violence, and in the consequent ostracism by their communities, by which they are made victims yet once more.
Let me turn to the domestic scene. During our previous debate on violence against women one year ago, the then Minister for Communities advised us that some 100,000 children were estimated to be affected by domestic violence. Such children are also innocent victims. Unfortunately, the fact that they are receptacles for the violence culture might—although I do not wish to play the amateur psychologist—turn them into victims themselves or, indeed, even perpetrators.
I found the most recent television ads that highlighted the sinister and pervasive threat of domestic violence to be most effective messages. However, I would like the minister to advise how the Executive monitors their effectiveness.
I note that the Executive intends to pilot a domestic abuse court, but I respectfully suggest that such cases might better be addressed in family law courts. The issue should be considered in the parliamentary debate that is due shortly on family law legislation, in which the definition of family needs to fit more appropriately with the practices of the past few decades.
I have a particular interest in the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which enacted a committee bill of the Justice 1 Committee. By attaching a power of arrest to common-law interdicts, the act ostensibly gave some protection to women, in particular those who were not married to their partner. However, I have seen the 2003 report on the operation of the act and I am afraid that it has not been very successful. The Executive has been the first to admit that. The report states:
"knowledge and awareness of the Act was variable. From our sample of 32 women victims of domestic violence 87% had never heard of the Act indicating a need for awareness raising. Of 8 who could have sought protection under the Act, only one was able to secure a PF interdict and 2 reported negative experiences."
Even the comments from professionals about the implications and use of the act are pretty threadbare.
I shall move on to something else that we need to address—it is for that reason that it is mentioned in the SNP amendment. The amendment focuses on the media and entertainment industry, which in many respects has much to answer for in the continuing culture of being violent to or violating women, where that is not only acceptable but titillating. There is hypocrisy in the screaming tabloid headlines about the indecencies to women caught up in war, when they are in juxtaposition to a near-naked female, who may be ogled in public on public transport in full view of children, young men and young women.
I recognise the work that Elaine Smith will be doing on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee in her report on pornography, which I think is long overdue. Violence against women and sex—often related and linked, though they should not be—are, regrettably, the mainstay of soft porn and the print press, and there is a whole issue of access to such material and to hard-core pornography, particularly now through the internet, which I suspect is even less policed by harassed parents than are the television and the video.
Although women in Scotland are free from the violence of war that I alluded to earlier, the violence of pornography is there for all to access—on the bus, in videos and magazines and on the web. It is there that young men and women are subjected to the influences that make them devalue one another sexually, contaminating respect for one another as people, and that cannot be detached from violence, in all its forms, against women. I hear what the Deputy Minister for Communities has said, and she very kindly sent me a letter explaining about the group that she is setting up. I am glad to see that that group will be looking into the influence of pornography, because that must have an impact on some of the statistics that we have before us on rape, sexual assaults and other violent assaults on women.
The subject is vast and complex, and I have simply touched on some issues. However, I hope that some of the queries that I have raised will be addressed in the minister's summing-up speech, so that anniversaries of previous debates are not simply marked but mark progress and change. While I am on my feet, I also want to say that I recognise Johann Lamont's personal commitment to the issue and I know that we shall make progress.
I move amendment S2M-2059.2 to insert at end:
"and, in particular to explore the cultural reasons underlying the recent report that one in five young men and one in ten women thought that violence against women was acceptable and to examine the crucial role that the media and entertainments industry has in compounding such attitudes, and, furth of Scotland, abhors the increased use of violence against women as a weapon of war."
The Scottish Conservatives recognise and welcome the fact that, five years ago, the UN General Assembly designated 25 November as international day for the elimination of violence against women. It is a fixed date in the calendar, so it is not surprising that, in the debate on domestic abuse only three weeks ago, both the Minister for Communities and his deputy made reference to a forthcoming debate on violence against women. Malcolm Chisholm said:
"I will speak to my colleague the Minister for Parliamentary Business to ask for a debate before Christmas on the wider agenda of violence against women."
Johann Lamont said:
"I am optimistic that we will have a debate on that broader issue towards the end of the month."—[Official Report, 4 November 2004; c 11600 and 11629.]
There is an issue here about the Executive's use of precious parliamentary debating time. Domestic abuse is a huge part of the overall debate on violence against women. It follows, therefore, that today there is bound to be a certain repetition of the points made and arguments proffered in the debate three weeks ago. There are two possible explanations as to why or how that could have happened. Either the Executive is being manipulative, seeking to avoid being held to account on various contentious issues, or if, unbelievably, it did not realise that there would be a duplication, it is guilty of being feckless. Both scenarios are equally unacceptable.
Margaret Mitchell is making the case that the Executive is not making proper use of parliamentary time, but I beg to differ. Does the member accept that some of us will be talking about the global position of women, about the international position of women, about the many campaigns that are going on and about the oppression of women in many other countries, which it would not be appropriate to discuss in a debate on domestic abuse?
I accept that. However, there has already been duplication in the speeches so far, which adequately proves my point. Violence against women is reprehensible, whatever form it takes. As the minister said, 11 women died as the result of domestic abuse in 2002. That is a sobering and startling statistic. It is a matter of grave concern that, despite all the efforts to raise awareness of domestic abuse, statistics highlight an increasing trend of repeat victimisation. The 2002 statistics reveal that previous incidents had been recorded for 50 per cent of the victims in the 36,000 incidents that were reported. That indicates that many victims find themselves trapped in abusive circumstances.
Raising awareness is a key issue, which is why I find it baffling that the Executive failed to support the Conservative amendment at the debate on domestic abuse earlier this month. That amendment called on the Executive
"to continue to explore different means to raise awareness of the issue generally and to ensure that individuals who are trapped in abusive situations are aware of these support services to help them escape from their abusive circumstances."
It was disappointing that, in her summing-up speech on that occasion, the Deputy Minister for Communities, who has spoken about domestic abuse on many occasions with passion and conviction, failed to explain why she and the Executive did not support our amendment, despite extra time having been allocated for the minister to provide such explanations. The fact that our amendment was gender neutral was referred to in that debate. I seek the minister's assurance that it was not rejected on that ground.
It is a matter of regret that the Scottish Parliament's process is such that the amendment lodged in my name for the debate, which, under the heading of "Violence Against Women", grasped the opportunity to increase awareness of the equally serious issue of violence against men, was not selected, especially in view of the fact that the latest homicide statistics, which were released yesterday, reveal that a staggering 93 out of 108 victims were male.
Will Margaret Mitchell take an intervention?
How much time do I have, Presiding Officer?
You have six minutes altogether.
How much time do I have left?
Four minutes and 35 seconds off six minutes.
Okay—I will accept a quick intervention.
Does Margaret Mitchell not recognise that male violence against women is premised on inequality? There is a big picture here.
I realise that it is about inequality. We take cognisance of the fact that 90 per cent of victims are women. I find it appalling, however, that there is such a grudging recognition of the 10 per cent who are male victims, who also deserve our wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity—the founding principles on which the Parliament is supposed to stand. That is at a time when unease is being voiced about Rape Crisis Scotland's policy of providing support for female victims only. The Executive gives express support to that network in its motion and I call on the minister to address the issue by ensuring that male rape victims have access to equally good support services, bearing in mind the words of Martin Luther King that
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
It is right that we are debating this issue. It is an international day, and we should show our solidarity. The motion is good, in that it proposes setting up
"an expert committee to support the development of a strategic approach to tackling these issues in future."
I hope that that expert committee will examine things widely. I also welcome the amendment, which I think is extremely constructive. If I may say so, it is one of the better efforts from the Scottish National Party.
Thank you.
He is such a charmer.
No—I think that the amendment is good. It deserves support. It shows what the Opposition should do.
I will divide the subject into two halves: one half is women and one half is violence. On the subject of the position of women, we must somehow keep up the pressure on the minority of men who still think that women are inferior. There is still a serious strain of such thought that can sometimes be met in people—not people in the Parliament, but people working in other organisations. One sometimes finds men who clearly bully women and think that women are inferior. Their attitude is entirely unacceptable and we must change it.
As well as more violent behaviour, there is the polite discrimination—what might be called dinner-party discrimination—that pervades all forms of society and all ethnic groups, which we must challenge. If such discrimination is seen in a minority section of an ethnic group that believes, for whatever reason, that women are inferior, that can sometimes be a problem. We must say to such people, "You are free and you can conduct your religion and believe what you like, but everyone is equal in Britain and you must treat your women as your equals. If you don't like that, you have the alternative." That is difficult to say to them, but we must be prepared to say it. We must change people's attitudes and stop children inheriting the wrong attitudes from their parents, which many of them do. Doing so will gradually help to build up a situation in which women are fully equal partners in all forms of our lives, which they should be and are in many cases, although they are still not always so.
We should examine all issues relating to violence together. I think that the minister said that we do not want to put knife crime in a pocket, crime against women in another pocket and so on. Many issues come together. Many problems are fuelled by alcohol, for example. We must press on that matter more vigorously. I hope that legislation on licensing will be brought forward, but everyone in society and the police must take issues relating to alcohol more seriously than we currently do. We must attack all aspects of the problem, whether it involves people using knives or hate crimes against groups, which involve women too.
I am talking about a different issue from that which my friend Mike Rumbles continually raises. Domestic violence should be seen as any violence within people's houses. Such violence is usually against women, but it can often be violence by grandparents, cousins or large sons against small mothers, for example. It would be better to extend the range of considerations. Concentrating so far on partner violence has been good, as the issue has come on to the agenda and the police take it much more seriously than they used to do, but we should deal with domestic violence all round.
We must seriously improve how we handle rape cases. I am not a lawyer and have no idea how that can be done, but the figures are pathetic. It is no wonder that people are still reluctant to report rapes, although reporting has increased a bit, as the minister said. There are practical things that we can do to improve how we deal with rape cases. We can give even more support to Scottish Women's Aid than we currently do for women and their children when women are the subject of violence.
On prostitution, I support Margo MacDonald's idea of tolerance zones, but a more fundamental issue is that we have—typically—got things wrong. The prostitutes are prosecuted instead of the men who patronise them. We need an anti-kerb-crawling bill, which would attack the issue in a far more sensible way.
I commend such ideas to the deputy minister, who is, I think, personally committed on the issue—I am sure that Mr Chisholm is, too. We need action, not words. If there is no improvement by the time we have a debate on the subject next year, we will all have failed. Let us really get something done.
Today is the start of 16 days of international action against violence against women. Three weeks ago, we discussed the struggle in Scotland and the good work that is being done by the Executive. We discussed the work that is done by Women's Aid and others to help the 10 per cent of women and the 100,000 children who face domestic abuse. We also discussed the work of organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland in helping victims and survivors of sexual violence and the work of organisations such as Open Secret, in Falkirk, which supports survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
The problem does not stop at our borders. The United Nations has recently recognised that
"civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict, including as refugees and internally displaced persons, and increasingly are targeted by combatants and armed elements".
It states that the rape victim has become an emblematic image of women's experience of war.
Article 1 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women stresses that
"the term ‘violence against women' means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life."
According to the UN, gender-based violence against women is violence that is
"directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately."
Throughout the world, conflict zones and dictatorships create obstacles to women seeking to protect themselves and assert their rights. The political imbalance that excludes women and their children from power in their country also subjugates women and children in their homes. Domestic abuse occurs in all countries and within all social, economic, religious and cultural groups. Although some victims of domestic violence are male and although violence can occur in same-sex partnerships or be directed against parents or grandparents, the overwhelming burden of partner violence is borne by women—and their children—at the hands of men.
I congratulate Amnesty International on the series of reports that it is producing to highlight the global problem of violence against women. In addition to a report on the impact of war and conflict and a series of country case studies, Amnesty has a report on women, HIV and AIDS and human rights.
Women who live with violent partners face psychological trauma and physical injury. They also have a difficult time in protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies or disease, including sexually transmitted infections. Because women are disempowered and lack resources such as drugs, they are vulnerable and unable to insist on measures such as the use of condoms to fight the spread of AIDS.
Stopping violence against women and protecting women's human rights go hand in hand. In order to take control of their lives, women need access to education and health services. They need rights to property and the right not to be someone else's property. They need to escape poverty and war.
In Scotland, we need to couple our strategy against domestic abuse within our country with a recognition of and a commitment to the role that we can play in the international struggle against violence against women. I am pleased that the Executive has introduced a bill to address female genital mutilation. That is a cultural tradition that women and children can well do without.
Since the advent of the Scottish Parliament, there has been a welcome focus on tackling violence against women. The emphasis is not just on tackling violence, but on helping the survivors of violence and abuse. The Executive funds Scottish Women's Aid and provides funding for training. In the past three years, £10 million has been put into the refuge development programme and £4.5 million has been devoted to the implementation of other aspects of the national strategy. More than £1.5 million has been awarded to 21 projects over the next two years under the domestic abuse service development fund, and nearly £2 million will go to rape crisis centres.
We have made progress, but we must not be complacent. Tackling violence against women is a task of global proportions and we in Scotland must play our part in the global campaign.
To talk of violence against women is not to deny the existence of violence against others. Indeed, failure to highlight violence against women—which makes up the largest part of the various discriminatory forms of violence—would be failure to support all victims of violence by showing indifference to the largest affected group. I say that as a man.
Violence against women is hardly new. The new king of a tribe of lions goes through a series of actions on taking over power in that group. There is the massacre of the young to destroy the previous gene stock, the fertilisation of the females to introduce his gene stock and, of course, the on-going suppression of the females in the group. In many ways, that is how humans have behaved over successive invasions: the Vikings, Genghis Khan and Hitler's Nazis followed the same course. In most of Scotland and much of the world we now know better. However, in significant areas of the world the culture has changed little from that of Genghis Khan—the model of the tribe of lions continues. That is why is important to make reference to a wider picture.
Modern technology has provided us with new ways of introducing our impressionable young people to distorting influences and views of the society in which they will take part. Computer games focus disproportionately on violence as entertainment. Violence admired and engaged with at second hand is the first step towards real engagement with violence. In many instances, violence is the response of the weak and inarticulate to those whom they see as even weaker and more subservient than they. Too often, women are seen as the weakest in our society. Many women—thankfully, a declining number—share that vision.
The 2000 Scottish crime survey had some interesting things to say. For example, it demonstrated that twice as many women as men experienced incidents of domestic violence each week. That reinforces the importance of talking about women. However, in this context we are talking about violence, rather than crime. Forty-three per cent of incidents recorded by the police did not lead to the recording of an offence or a conviction. Many more incidents are not even recorded, because victims have comparatively low confidence that what they say will be taken seriously. They are victims each week of repeated violence and cannot see a way out of the cycle of despair. At the high-tariff end of the problem, to which Donald Gorrie referred, a tiny minority of prosecutions and rape charges lead to someone being banged up and locked away from the target of their violence.
I will comment on a couple of points that have been made. I say to Donald Gorrie and the Executive that there is one measure that has been tried against kerb crawling that does not need legislation. We might encourage the police, simply in the interests of good public order, to supervise tightly areas in which kerb crawling is likely to be an issue, to photograph the vehicles that are involved and to make the appropriate inquiries at the homes of the perpetrators. Social pressure is as effective as pressure directly from the criminal justice system. It has been applied elsewhere and appears to work.
Essentially, this debate focuses on women as victims. We must provide adequate support after the event and ensure that such events happen much less often. The numbers tell us why. I refer to the types of violent crime experienced by men and women in 1999. Among male victims, 38 per cent of violent crimes were committed by a stranger, 42 per cent were committed by an acquaintance and 5 per cent were domestic. However, for women, 64 per cent of violent crimes—two out of three—were domestic. Therefore, we can tell that those are abusive situations that are based on a relationship, whatever it may be. It is violence against women because they are women and it is the least acceptable kind of violence.
The good news is that the report also tells us that in the lower age groups, particularly the 25 to 44 group, we are seeing much more reporting than in older age groups. That is a good sign that women may be standing up for themselves, which is part of the problem, but only a tiny part. I support my colleague Christine Grahame's amendment.
Given that we had an extensive debate on the issue of violence against women three weeks ago, I want to use some of my time to concentrate on male-against-male violence, particularly that of male rape. According to the Executive's national strategy to address domestic abuse,
"Domestic abuse … is part of a range of behaviours constituting male abuse of power, and is linked to other forms of male violence."
However, the document "Preventing Domestic Abuse: A National Strategy" states that the prevention strategy's underlying principles will be
"informed by women, children and young people who have experienced and witnessed violence, and by research."
I fully support that approach, but could it not also include the experience of men who have been affected by male or, indeed, female violence?
In past debates, I have confirmed that I would wish to introduce a member's bill in order to look at male rape. I have not done so, precisely—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you would rule on this point before we go much further. It is not that I do not support some of the points that I think that Mary Scanlon is about to make, but this is a debate about violence against women. I know that you allow flexibility, but if you give flexibility to such an extent in a debate that is headlined as being about violence against women, I will review my approach to debates in the future according to how much latitude I would expect to get from the Presiding Officer.
This is obviously a difficult matter because Mrs Scanlon began by saying that she proposed to give some of her time to the issue of male-against-male violence. I judged from that that she intends to speak to the motion that is under debate. The point of order is relevant and valid, however, because of course an amendment on that point was specifically not selected. If members, in effect, speak to an amendment that has not been selected because of its lack of relevance, that could constitute a challenge to the authority of the Presiding Officer. Therefore, while appreciating that her subject matter is cognate, I encourage Mrs Scanlon to return quickly to the topic of the debate.
I am happy to do that, Presiding Officer, but I noticed that the minister, in introducing the debate, clearly concentrated on male violence. In that respect, I hope that some of what I want to say—a small part of my speech—is, indeed, appropriate.
I have not introduced a member's bill because of the Solicitor General for Scotland's written answer to a parliamentary question from me, in which she said:
"In Scots law the crime of rape can only be committed against a female. Equivalent crimes of sexual violence against male victims are charged at common law as offences of indecent assault and/or sodomy. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service review will include examination of the prosecution of serious sexual offences committed against male victims."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 11 March 2004; S2W-6544.]
I was pleased to make an intervention in the minister's introductory speech and to hear her commitment to the review.
Rape is defined as intercourse against a person's will, so why should men be treated less equally than women in that respect?
Given that the Tories submitted a gender-free amendment for the recent domestic abuse debate and wanted to talk about men, and that in this debate about violence against women they want to talk about men, can they tell us when they want to talk about violence against women? Do they ever want to do so, or are they in denial that it exists?
I think that Carolyn Leckie should be aware that the term "gender-free" relates to men and women. However, after that rant, I will continue.
The other point that I wish to raise in the debate relates to the 50 per cent of recorded cases in which victims had previously recorded incidents, which indicates that victims find themselves trapped in abusive circumstances and that abusers are not addressing their behaviour or, indeed, getting the support needed to change their behaviour and to move away from physical abuse.
In our most recent debate on the subject, I mentioned that in some cases there might be a straightforward communication impairment, which could be helped by the professional input of a speech therapist. That would enable the person affected to state their case in a more reasoned and measured manner, instead of resorting to fists. We are all aware that there are many anger management courses and other types of support on offer.
When violence is recorded, it would surely be helpful for the victim and the abuser to be offered some help and support in coping with a situation that could lead to violence in future. I was pleased that the Executive's strategy includes the longer-term goal of the need to
"Resist demonising men who use violence. But challenge abusing men to accept responsibility for their behaviour."
If we lock people up without providing rehabilitation, counselling or some other way of addressing their unacceptable behaviour, we will not address the problem in the long term. I hope that the experience of men and women who have used violence is listened to and that it informs future strategies.
My final point relates to Women's Aid refuges, which undoubtedly do a wonderful job by providing much-needed support and safety. However, a problem that affects many single women who are in abusive situations, as well as women with families, is that once they are settled in a hostel, they find it difficult to move on to their own accommodation because of a local crisis in housing. That is a particular problem in Inverness at the moment and I imagine that the situation in other towns and cities is similar. My fear is that, in future, a concern about not being able to move on from a hostel or refuge may discourage women from leaving abusive partners.
I hope that the Executive will consider all forms of male violence and will ensure that the reasons that lead to that violent behaviour are examined and addressed appropriately.
I am pleased to speak in the debate, especially as today is the international day for the elimination of violence against women.
The words of the motion confirm the Executive's determination to eradicate, through funding and support schemes,
"all forms of violence against women in Scotland".
I welcome the Executive's ambition in tackling the issue head on, but I would like it to do more.
In the motion, the Minister for Communities acknowledges that considerable funding has been made available over the past four years. That is largely due to the good work that is being done by many people to raise awareness of the issues that surround violence against women in all its forms. There is no better time than the international day for the elimination of violence against women on which to examine violence against women. Although it is right and proper that we should do so, we must go further than we are going at the moment and focus our attention on all victims of violence.
Last week, when we put this debate on the parliamentary timetable, I challenged the Minister for Parliamentary Business to schedule a debate that would allow us to widen our consideration of domestic violence issues. I have to say that the minister's response was more than disappointing. Instead of acknowledging the genuine need to help all victims of domestic violence, she seemed to be content to misunderstand what I was requesting.
I take the opportunity to state for the record, in unequivocal terms, that I recognise that domestic violence against women is by far the most prevalent form of domestic violence and that it needs to be tackled. The point that I have made consistently in our debates on violence against women is that we need to eradicate such violence and to support the female victims of it, but that we will fail in our duty if we do not help all victims of violence, whether female or male. It was simply not acceptable for the Deputy Minister for Communities to imply in her speech that violence by women against men does not take place and is not a human rights issue, too; I thought that she implied that by the sin of omission, if nothing else. I believe that, once again, ministers have missed an opportunity with the motion that is before us today.
I am listening carefully to what the member is saying. Does he accept that the Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, recently concluded the short-life working group on childhood sexual abuse? The remit of the working group covered abuse that women and men suffered as children. A lot of work is being done to help all victims of sexual abuse; I mention in particular the work of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Today's debate is being held on the international day for the elimination of violence against women. We are talking about violence against women and we need to give the subject the cognisance it deserves. Like other members who have intervened in the debate, I ask the member to talk about the important subject that we are in the chamber to discuss.
That is exactly what I am saying—the member should listen to what I am trying to say and not to what she thinks I am trying to say. My disappointment is with the motions that come before the Parliament time and again. I agree that it is appropriate for us to look at violence against women—of course it is—and I have said so. On the international day for the elimination of violence against women, we should recognise that fact.
However, if we are to be an all-inclusive Parliament, we must practise what we preach. The motions that come before us must be inclusive. The message that the Parliament and the Executive send out should be that we are committed to eradicating all forms of violence and that we want to show that we are for the victims of violence, whoever perpetrates that violence.
Although we are not able to debate it, I was glad to see Margaret Mitchell's amendment to the motion. I am disappointed that—so far—we cannot seem to get ministers to accept the need for inclusion in the motions that they put to the Parliament. I understand that the Presiding Officer has ruled that it was not appropriate to accept Margaret Mitchell's amendment. If it had been taken for debate, I for one would have voted for it—alas, we do not have the opportunity to do so.
Mike Rumbles is four minutes and 38 seconds into his speech; what tenets of wisdom does he have to address the issue of violence against women? He says that he wants to talk about it, but he has not yet started.
That is one of the most awful interventions I have ever heard. Carolyn Leckie is obviously not listening to what I am saying. I am trying to make the point that violence against women is an important issue that we must address but that we need also to be inclusive.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the wider issues in a members' business debate; perhaps as soon as next week. I am disappointed that the subject might have to be debated in a members' business debate and not in an Executive debate. I hope that the Executive will take the next available opportunity to schedule an all-inclusive debate on the subject, in which we can send a clear message to everyone in Scotland that all violence, from whatever source it comes—male or female—is unacceptable.
Mr Rumbles related his speech rather more skilfully to the motion for debate today. I ask members from here on in to restrict themselves to addressing the motion.
I begin by declaring my interest as a member of the board of Routes Out of Prostitution, which is based in Glasgow.
Although women have achieved equality at many levels throughout the world, the world is still largely dominated by men—it is predominantly men who hold power in our globe. Unfortunately, Mike Rumbles's view, as expressed in the speech that he has just given us, is that the rest of us deny that men are victims, too—a point that I will come to later. The sad fact of life is that Mike Rumbles represents a minority of people who do not understand the context of the debate.
The context is that women are not equal to men and that men hold the power in the world. We have to understand the position of exploitation and power relationships in a world in which men are predominant—I think that most men would accept that that is the case. I say to Mike Rumbles that, if he continues to deny the role of men in the world in relation to women, he will continue to misunderstand the debate and we will not come to the right solutions. I will shortly move on to address the position of male victims of violence.
Women have demonstrated all kinds of bravery and imagination in making their contribution to dealing with the troubles of the world. I recently met Machsom Watch, a group of Israeli women who dedicate their time to watching over the human rights of Palestinians who encounter crippling checkpoints when they make a simple journey to the doctor. Those brave women simply observe the treatment of the Palestinians and in doing so stand up for peace and humanity in a conflict dominated by men.
Violence, and the threat of it, takes many forms. Human trafficking is a worldwide problem. It is a form of violence against men, women and children, but it is primarily a crime committed by men against female adults and children. According to Home Office statistics, 800,000 people are trafficked annually. The trafficking of human beings is the third largest income earner—it generates $7 million a year. One hundred and twenty thousand women and children are trafficked into western Europe every year. The nature of the crime makes it difficult to be accurate about the extent of the problem, but a rough estimate of the number of people who are trafficked into the United Kingdom is anything between 140 and 1,400 a year. The main countries of origin are Moldova, Thailand, Romania, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Trafficking takes place for marriage, for work and for forced prostitution. It is estimated that, in off-street prostitution in London, women are forced to serve 30 or 40 clients a day, and 79 per cent of prostitutes have experienced violence.
In Sweden, the sale of sexual services has been banned. It is interesting to note that there is proof that traffickers avoid going to Sweden, where the prosecutors can grant warrants to intercept communications and therefore can listen in, because of the treatment that they will get.
I sound a note of caution about Donald Gorrie's comments on tolerance zones. We must weigh up the violence against women that happens in prostitution and the exploitation of women by men. The Executive said in the partnership agreement that it will consider making kerb crawling an offence. However, there are pros and cons to such an approach and we must ensure that when we legislate in the interests of women to protect them from violence, we take steps that make them safe. Wherever sexual exploitation occurs there will be a market for trafficked women and children. Of course, 15 per cent of trafficked human beings are men—I do not dismiss that for a minute. There is an economic vested interest in almost all crime, but we must address the unequal position of women and children.
London has a very serious problem with human trafficking. Senior police officers in the Metropolitan police have expressed surprise that street prostitution in Glasgow remains largely unorganised by international crime networks. We must be alive to the prospect of what we might face in our own country.
It is because of the emerging world problem that I was particularly pleased that the Executive has supported a project on human trafficking to monitor what is going on in our own country. I call for the establishment of a place of safety for women who have been trafficked, because many of the women are bonded to their traffickers, which means that either they or their families will be threatened at their home in their country of origin. Therefore, the women cannot admit what they have been forced into, so we do not get the true picture. Nine women in my constituency—foreign nationals who were found in a sauna in Glasgow—were believed to have been trafficked, but I do not think that we got to the bottom of that case. It is important that when such cases are dealt with initially, they are treated not as immigration cases but as cases in which the women involved should be provided with a place of safety. I support Amnesty International's campaign.
I know that the Executive has still to make a decision on a proposal to set up a sexual assault referral centre in Glasgow, an intervention that is aimed at improving the response to rape. Councillor Irene Graham and Kath Gallagher, a support worker, are two women who have campaigned hard to win support for the proposal. In cases of rape and sexual assault, the centre could be a first point of contact for women who are raped or sexually assaulted. It could also be used for the storing of forensic samples and could act as a first point of contact where female police surgeons—of whom there is a severe shortage—are on hand.
I welcome this important debate. It is important that we are discussing violence against women across the globe. I commend the Executive's approach to women and its approach to the prevention of violence generally, which I do not believe that any Government has tackled as strongly in the past. I will continue to support the Executive on this matter.
I fully support this international day for the elimination of violence against women, but I hope that there will be a point in the not-too-distant future when the need for such a day no longer exists.
Like other members, I do not condone violence against any person, irrespective of gender, but we cannot escape the uncomfortable fact that violence against women prevails and is part of an overwhelming and endemic problem in our society. It is very much an equality issue; it is about attitudes towards women and the power inequalities between men and women. Despite initiatives from the Executive, the problem remains that far too many people tolerate and perpetrate violence and abuse against women. I fully support Christine Grahame's amendment, the figures within which are horrifying.
It is vital that the Parliament sends the message that any violence against women will not be tolerated and must be eradicated. I am therefore concerned that the recent report on hate crimes recommended that hate crime legislation should not specifically cover women. Many women's groups throughout Scotland are extremely disappointed with that position. Does the Executive agree that gender-based hate crimes should constitute a vital part of that legislation? I recognise that hate crime legislation alone will not end men's violence against women, but it would serve as a powerful tool in addressing and changing attitudes. The key point is that violence and abuse against women is embedded in all aspects of our society and it is up to each one of us to dismantle it in every way that we can. It would be fitting if the Executive committed itself to including women in hate crime legislation on this special day.
We must also recognise the plight of women who are being trafficked into Scotland for the purposes of prostitution and work in the sex industry. Trafficking is a highly organised international crime. It is estimated that between 120,000 and 300,000 women and girls are trafficked to and within Europe every year. Even more alarming is the fact that trafficking is believed to be the fastest-growing industry in central and eastern Europe. We need to determine the number of trafficked women and girls in Scotland. They must have access to a full range of assistance, protection and support. As yet, there is no specific service in Scotland to help those women.
I have a point of information. In my speech, I referred to an Executive-funded project in Glasgow, which seeks to establish the true picture of women who are being trafficked—that might apply just to the Glasgow area, but I am sure that the minister can clarify that. I would have thought that Shiona Baird would welcome that project, if she knows about it.
I was going to refer to it. I wondered whether Pauline McNeill was referring to the same project that I am thinking about. We know that money was allocated in March but, as yet, we have not heard how that money will be rolled out or what is happening with the services in the pilot project in Glasgow. I agree that the project is worth while; indeed, I lodged a motion before the money came forward, although I do not take any credit for the provision of that money.
It is important that we raise awareness of the problem and provide specialist training for agencies that come into contact with trafficked women. I note with interest that the Executive is setting up an expert committee, which I hope will include an expert on trafficking. I would like to hear the minister's response to that point.
Much progress has been made on tackling violence against women, but we need much more positive action so that we no longer have to have such debates every year.
We recently had a debate on domestic abuse and the Tories would have us cut into this debate because they feel that the subject was covered in that one. I say to the Tories, including Mike Rumbles, that this debate has international dimensions; it concerns all women and all of society and requires further and special debating time.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have just started. Mike Rumbles had six minutes and he wasted them.
We could discuss violence against women every day and still not cover the length, breadth and height of the issue. We should discuss it every day, as it occurs globally every minute of every day. Given that today is the international day for the elimination of violence against women, it is right that we should consider the issues from a global perspective to begin to find global and local solutions.
During the debate on domestic abuse, we heard that abuse against women includes kicking, slapping, pushing and burning. I am sure that, like me, many members remember Cathy Peattie's moving and relevant speech in which she pinpointed perfectly the reality and effects of emotional abuse. Most speakers in that debate did not fail to congratulate the Executive on much of the work that it has done on the issue. Today, we have an opportunity to go a wee bit further because we can think and talk about all women and all forms of violence against them—in other words, anything that harms women. The debate must be welcomed by all.
Pauline McNeill and Shiona Baird mentioned human trade and slave markets, which are phrases that should have fallen into the history books but which, sadly, have not. The victims of that male-run activity fall into all sorts of dangerous labour, including forced prostitution and bonded labour, which can look as innocent as being an au pair or child minder in some of the smarter parts of the country. As we speak, trafficked women and girls from all backgrounds are being placed at risk in every way in so-called saunas and the like up and down the country.
Women are abusively shipped like goods across the planet to experience further and prolonged abuse. Globally, our sisters are void of rights and have their lives put at risk, day in, day out. Without doubt, their physical, emotional and mental well-being is compromised. Self-esteem is knocked out of them and a sense of self-worth is but a distant dream. Deceit, violence and coercion are used to begin the journey and the eventual outcome is the stuff of nightmares. As Pauline McNeill said, women become dependent on their traffickers; they cannot escape because they have no travel documents, no access to money, no status and no rights. The issue is global, but it is not distant. Trafficked women and girls are being used in this country and in this city.
I mentioned a global solution. Why not think big, given that women make up more than half the world's population and are therefore the dominant gender in terms of numbers? We live longer; we are more likely to survive premature birth; we have more stamina; we are more likely to survive an insult to our health; we are less likely to be miscarried; and, oh boy, can we multitask. Women are without doubt the stronger sex, so why are we more likely to suffer abuse? The answer is that, despite our numbers and strength, we do not use that strength to dominate. How can we begin to change the situation? There is no panacea, but that does not mean that we should stand still. Christine Grahame's amendment rightly points to the statistic that one in five young men and one in 10 young women think that violence against women is acceptable. When we change that, we will start to change the world. Therefore, we must start working with children, as, I think, Donald Gorrie mentioned.
We must do something. In the UK, traffickers face a range of penalties under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but no legislation provides for the support and protection of people who are trafficked. Such legislation would not be a panacea, but will the minister say whether we could consider introducing such a bill, as that would allow us to show the way and to send out a clear message, as well as offer practical support and hope?
Today we remember all our sisters in Scotland and throughout the world and all the women who are victims of war in Iraq and in the rest of the world.
This welcome debate allows us to focus on and explore some of the prejudices and problems that women face and that manifest themselves as violence against women and children. As Cathy Peattie, Pauline McNeill and others have pointed out, the poverty, oppression, inequality and suffering of women permeate the globe, which is why we need an international day and days of action.
Wars such as that in Iraq, which are fought not for freedom and democracy but to advance the interests of global capital, impact most severely on women and children. Around the world and at home, women suffer disproportionately from the effects of poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth and power. No matter whether we are talking about stoning women to death for alleged adultery, female genital mutilation, rape, trafficking or domestic abuse, violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon.
As for the situation in Scotland, I commend the Scottish Executive for its obvious commitment to tackling violence against women and for initiating this debate. I particularly welcome its intention to set up an expert group to look at the issue strategically. Many problems, including violence, that women face in our society must be tackled in a unified manner as part of a comprehensive approach towards challenging gender discrimination.
As Rosie Kane suggested, part of the solution lies in changing attitudes that are supported and encouraged by social structures and cultural messages portraying women's needs and rights as less important than men's. Women are still disadvantaged in many areas of their lives, as the minister pointed out. They earn less than men and they are more likely to live in poverty. Moreover, they are held back from leadership positions in society not through lack of ability but because they have to meet home and caring responsibilities while holding down paid employment—in other words, the double work day. That kind of structural inequality at social, cultural and political levels gives men the advantage over women and can create the conditions for violence.
I, of course, sympathise with any man who faces domestic abuse. However, some colleagues who continually raise that issue during debates on violence against women are failing to see the big picture. Male violence against women is premised on women's inequality and subordination in our society and across the globe.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I do not have the time.
The continuum of male violence against women and children includes domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, prostitution and pornography. As Christine Grahame has pointed out, I will be looking into that last issue for the Equal Opportunities Committee.
Although the evidence of harm to women who have experienced male violence has been well documented, the underlying connection between all forms of male violence against women has not been properly explored. As a result, I believe that there is a clear need for the Scottish Executive to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the whole continuum of male violence against women. I am pleased that, having rightly put so much effort into tacking domestic abuse, the Executive is now examining the wider aspects of violence against women and children. I look forward to following the expert committee's work.
We need extensive research that considers male violence against women in the context of a widespread manifestation of gender discrimination, demonstrates the evidence of harm and establishes links between different forms of violence. That information should then be used to help to combat all forms of gender discrimination, to produce cohesive social policy that tackles the impact of male violence across all areas of social and public life and to provide enhanced legal protection against male violence, including protection against the harm caused by prostitution and pornography. Taking such action will help us to meet the ultimate aim of eliminating violence against women and children.
The voluntary and statutory sectors in Scotland now have considerable experience of delivering high-quality support services to those who have experienced rape and sexual assault. There is also a growing recognition that agencies have to work together to be effective. As Pauline McNeill pointed out, the Glasgow violence against women partnership has presented a multi-agency proposal for a pilot rape and sexual assault referral centre that would bring forensic, health and support services together in one location. I encourage the minister and the new expert committee to give early consideration to that welcome proposal in their discussions with representatives of other ministerial portfolios.
Attacking injustice and winning reform have been an integral part of the long struggle for women's emancipation and the raising of social consciousness. We should not forget that it is women who have led that struggle over the years. Achieving genuine liberation for women depends on rejecting a social order in which women are systematically undermined by the pervasiveness of all forms of male violence. However, we must also acknowledge that female oppression, poverty and inequality are directly linked to capitalism and economic exploitation. The eradication of class and labour exploitation and the embrace of true socialism are an essential prerequisite for the emancipation of women at home and around the world. I will conclude with the words of Lucy Gair Wilkinson, which were written at the turn of the previous century and are still relevant today. She wrote:
"It is to Socialism that women must look for their freedom; & Socialism can only be achieved by a united working class. Let the women workers of today unite with their brother wage-slaves to put an end to the suffering & subjection in which silent generations of the women of the past have lived & died."
I welcome the Executive's motion and its on-going commitment to the eradication of domestic violence. I also agree with the SNP amendment, two points in which I want to address. Point 1 is that research has found that one in five young men and one in 10 young women believe that violence against women is acceptable in some cases. We should all bear that horrifying statistic in mind.
Point 2 is the recognition that violence against women is an international issue, as Cathy Peattie eloquently outlined. Violence against women is not confined to any particular political or economic system, but is a phenomenon that cuts across boundaries of wealth, race and culture. Indeed, women's role in the world is based on a fundamental belief in societies of the non-importance of women compared with men. Indeed, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women acknowledges and confirms the basic tenet that
"violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men."
The use of women as a weapon of war, in either internal or international struggles, is a monstrous manifestation of that unequal power relationship and of gender violence. There are far too many examples, but I will cite just a few. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, there has been systematic rape and torture of at least 40,000 women and girls during the past six years of civil conflict. In Darfur in Sudan, girls as young as eight are among the victims of mass rape and women as old as 80 have been taken hostage and used as sex slaves. It is estimated that, during the genocide in Rwanda, up to 0.5 million women were subject to rape, including gang rape, sexual torture and mutilation. The cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament was privileged to hear recently from a Rwandan lady who told us of her experiences and of the staggering facts about HIV and AIDS in her country—seven out of 10 of the abused women are now suffering from that condition. A recent Amnesty report states that, although we are 10 years on from the Rwandan genocide, prosecutions have been few and far between. That is an indictment of not just that country, but us all.
However, the issue is not all about Africa, a distant continent. Closer to home, in eastern Europe, the world witnessed the same kind of violence towards women as a weapon of war. Similarly, we continue to see trafficking, as Pauline McNeill, Shiona Baird and Rosie Kane mentioned. Indeed, at times trafficking is, sadly, perpetrated by those who are expected to protect the women. The SNP supports all initiatives to address the issue and to support the victims.
The on-going effects of mass violence are beyond the imagination of any of us. No matter what happens to women anywhere in the world, they have to get on with life; they have to cook, clean and raise the children, even where they are stigmatised by their societies because of circumstances that are way beyond their control.
I have seen some of the results for women who have had to live with such violence. I have friends in East Timor who suffered rape and sterilisation by external aggressors. In Peru, I was privileged to meet some of the victims of the civil war—community activists who were violated both by insurgents and by Government forces during the struggle simply because they were trying to improve the lot of ordinary people, as women do all over the world.
Cathy Peattie is right to say that Scotland should be playing a part in the global campaign to stop violence against women wherever it occurs. However, we can do that with any force and credibility only if we recognise and deal with our own culture of violence against women, in which one in five young men and one in 10 young women believe that violence against women is acceptable.
Elaine Smith and I are involved in a Tanzanian project with the British Council. The women MPs from Tanzania whom we meet are absolutely astounded when we talk to them about domestic violence in Scotland. They are amazed to learn that, in a country that they see as being democratic and forward thinking—Scotland's condition is something that they aspire to—people suffer from domestic violence to a degree that is not that far removed from the degree to which people in Tanzania suffer from it. We should be amazed as well and we should be doing everything that we can to support the Executive in what it is trying to do. I have no doubt about the sincerity of the Executive in relation to this struggle and I confirm my whole-hearted support, as well as that of my party, for it in that regard.
I am glad to be able to be the second Scottish Socialist Party speaker in the debate, as it is not often that two SSP members are allowed to speak in one debate. On the other hand, it is perhaps disappointing that I have been able to speak, as it shows how undersubscribed the debate has been.
The debate is about violence against women internationally. The idea that a debate on domestic abuse covers the issue of violence against women is a display of unbelievable ignorance. However, I will move on rather than waste time on that issue.
We need to consider what is happening in our society in terms of the role of the media and the shift towards the normalisation of the exploitation of women. Every day, there are snapshots on the front pages of the tabloids of headless women—their identities are removed—who are pictured from the back, wearing thongs, so that they are identified only by their bottoms. It is normal to find in newspapers photographs—stolen snapshots—taken up women's skirts as they get in and out of cars. Is it any wonder that attitudes of men towards women and towards violence and rape have shifted to a point at which many people think that it is okay to hit women and force sex on them?
That has happened because there is big money in shifting attitudes and in prostitution, trafficking and sex industries. Even the use of the word "industry" normalises the exploitation of women so that the profits can get bigger and bigger. That is what our society is predicated on. Capitalism thrives on and needs the exploitation of women. Prostitution and pornography are seen as just another market for big business and profits to thrive on.
I agree with Elaine Smith that we need to overthrow capitalism in order to liberate women. However, that would not be the end of the story, because patriarchy would still exist. Patriarchy and discrimination exist in the trade union movement and even within socialist organisations and parties, as I am sure all of us who have taken part in them know. Men are a problem, capitalism or no capitalism, and we need to sort them. [Laughter.] Seriously.
The push to normalise the exploitation of women concerns not only the images in tabloid newspapers. It is now commonplace for stag nights to involve lap dancing and prostitution. Women—even the prospective brides—are made to feel prudish if they challenge such behaviour. Well, I challenge such behaviour, because it is abuse and violence and it is unacceptable.
According to the figures, only 6 per cent of reported rapes are prosecuted and a tiny percentage of those result in a conviction. That is despite a 300 per cent increase in the number of cases reported. Moreover, the figures ignore the many thousands more women who might have been the victim of rape when they were drunk or drugged and so do not have a hope in hell of securing a conviction and do not consider going to the police. Let me make it absolutely clear: when a woman does not give explicit and express consent, or when she is not capable of giving explicit and express consent, that is rape. It should be seen as rape and men should be charged with rape in those circumstances. Unfortunately, in too many cases, that is not what happens.
Juanita Berry has courageously written a detailed diary of what happened to her following a rape. In one extract, she explains her despair about the people who perpetrated that rape and about the society around her that let her down. She writes:
"I feel nauseous and apprehensive all the time for no apparent reason. My head feels so full there's so much going through my mind I can't keep up with it all and it's making me feel sick and scared. I feel like I want to run around the room screaming. There's a big scream in the pit of my stomach that I want to let go. My throat feels like it's constricted."
There are far too many women with a big scream in the pit of their stomachs and we let them down at every turn.
The commodification of women allows such things to happen to them; it is all linked. We have to have a serious debate about the role of pornography. Lots of research shows that many of the women in pornography are very young; they are advertised as being barely legal and have been groomed by abuse to participate in pornography. Let us not kid ourselves that there is a consensual and equal relationship in pornography and that there are loads of women out there who want to volunteer to spread themselves over Barbie quilts looking like teenagers. That is not the case. Pornography is predicated on abuse and we have to start to deal with that.
We cannot have a debate about violence against women without talking about the biggest incident of violence that is being perpetrated against women and children in the world today—the war in Iraq. Just the other night, the bodies of 73 women and children were found buried in Fallujah. That is a slaughter and a disgrace. It is the biggest abuse and rape of women and children in the world today and it is being perpetrated in our name by our Government, in conjunction with the big bully in Washington, George Bush. It is unacceptable. The war should be stopped and the troops should be brought home.
I hear what Carolyn Leckie said about men being a problem. Some people might expect me to agree with that. I do not necessarily agree, but I did wonder if she had any particular man in mind when she made that comment.
I am pleased that the Parliament is marking the UN international day for the elimination of violence against women with this debate. I am even more pleased that since the creation of the Parliament, we have focused on this important issue and its different aspects on several occasions. More important, the Scottish Executive has responded with greater resources to tackle some of those issues. The minister mentioned a few of them in her speech.
The issue is clearly one of gender inequality. Pauline McNeill, Elaine Smith and many other speakers set it in that context. In her very passionate contribution, Cathy Peattie expressed it well when she said that violence does affect other people, but it affects women disproportionately. Domestic violence affects more women than it does anybody else. That is not to deny that there is violence against men, or indeed that there is violence in same-sex relationships, which is another issue that people will not speak up about. Mary Scanlon was right to mention that male rape is an issue, and I support what she said.
Violence is all about power, but domestic violence is always an abuse of power. Most of the time, it is about the power of men over women, but it can also be the abuse of power by a parent over a child or by a grown-up child over an elderly parent or it can be against disabled people. There are many forms of abuse. It can be against men by women or against men by other men or, indeed, against women by women. There are many ways in which such abuse pervades our society, but it is right that we focus on violence against women on this day.
When people think of violence against women, they often think of horrendous domestic abuse, but colleagues have ably demonstrated that the issue is, unfortunately, about a great deal more than that. On prostitution, I share Donald Gorrie's support for tolerance zones and I supported Margo MacDonald's bill on that subject. When the bill was being considered, it became apparent that prostitutes encountered less violence in the tolerance zone because it was much easier to police the area and to keep an eye on what was going on. Whether we like it or not, that was in some ways effective. Police officers said that when prostitution was restricted to a tolerance zone, rather than spread across the city, they could keep a better handle on trafficking and on the age of the women who were involved. The trafficking situation has now reached epidemic proportions, which was not the case at that time.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have a lot to get through.
I agree that we should not charge women who use their bodies to try either to make a living to support their families or to support a drug habit. We should prosecute the men who prey on them.
The pervasive impact of video games and the internet, highlighted by Christine Grahame and Stewart Stevenson, is, as Carolyn Leckie said in her powerful statement against pornography, all about money. It is about men making money out of women.
Trafficking is also an issue, as Pauline McNeill and Shiona Baird rightly highlighted in what were good contributions. Each year, roughly 2 million girls between five and 15 are trafficked, sold or coerced into prostitution. We can all do something about tackling that, here in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, as well as in Lothian and Borders and across the world.
Violence against women is a major cause of death and disability. A World Bank report estimated that, among women of reproductive age, such violence was as serious a cause of death and incapacity as cancer. With each conflict across the world, we hear the inevitable stories of the rape and abuse of women as a weapon of war. The consequences of that abuse continue; as Linda Fabiani pointed out, for example, 70 per cent of Rwandan victims of rape now have HIV. In recent conflicts, 70 per cent of casualties have been non-combatants, who have been mostly women and children.
Violence against women not only breaks their bones but can break their souls. It means not only the fist raised in anger, but the voice raised to belittle and demean. Abuse knows many guises, from physical or sexual abuse to much more insidious psychological damage. Often, the threat of such actions by men against women is enough to harm the woman and her children and enough to impede her opportunities.
Recently, Mike Pringle and I visited the Alva Street drug treatment and testing order centre and several other criminal justice schemes in Edinburgh. When asked what problems women faced, every professional we spoke to said, "Men." The first couple of times that I heard that response, I laughed because I thought that it was a joke. However, when the same answer kept on cropping up everywhere, I realised that it was not funny. At the drug treatment and testing order centre, we were told that men's chances of successfully completing the programme were enhanced if they had a partner, but that the situation is totally different for women. The project found that women were less successful if they had male partners, because the male partners did not want them to succeed. The male partners did not want them off drugs, because while the women were on drugs the men could control them, and control them into prostitution.
Men can control women in a number of ways, but economic factors play a major part. If a woman thinks that she cannot afford to leave and cannot afford to support her children, if she has no job, no training and nowhere to go, she is more likely to stay, which is what abusers are counting on. There are still thousands of women who suffer in silence, afraid to come out and tell the truth, partly because of reprisals, but partly because of shame and stigma, which is what abusers are counting on. There are still more women who are subjected to sexual attack or abuse who look at the statistics and see a Scottish justice system in which only 6 per cent of rape cases lead to conviction and decide not to report their abuse, which is what abusers are counting on.
There is a whole range of ways in which we can tackle the issue, here in Scotland, in Europe and across the wider world. I have been pleased to hear from many of the contributions and from the tone of this debate, for the most part, that we are equally committed to ending violence against women.
This has been an interesting debate with a number of varied contributions, some measured, some intemperate, some eminently sensible, some less so. When she opened the debate, after the predictable complaints about general inequality, the Deputy Minister for Communities had a sideswipe at the Conservatives about our attitude to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I shall clarify the matter for her yet again; our objections were not to the context of the bill, but to the fact that the Executive was seeking powers that it already had. That was the problem.
However, taking what is perhaps an uncharacteristically consensual approach, I would like to paraphrase what the Deputy Minister for Communities said at the conclusion of her speech: that violence against women is deplorable and that we must all work to change attitudes. Of course, she is entirely correct, and no one should doubt that there is anything other than complete unanimity around the Parliament on that issue.
As I said, there have been some other contributions that are certainly worthy of mention. Christine Grahame dealt with the international aspect of violence against women. Cathy Peattie and other members also took up that issue and they were perfectly correct to do so. Some of the situations that exist in the world are unspeakable, and those who highlighted them did this debate a service.
Donald Gorrie very sensibly highlighted the fact that there are troubles within some of our own communities that we have failed to recognise, and that this would be a much more honest debate were we to recognise the fact that certain sections of our society have an attitude towards women that is at best ambivalent. He also dealt with the question of tolerance zones and, at the same time, mentioned a kerb crawling bill. I have to say that there seemed to be some inconsistency in those arguments, but I fully accept that the points are arguable nonetheless.
Stewart Stevenson began his speech with something with which we would entirely agree. He did not disregard violence against men, and that was absolutely appropriate. He also dealt eloquently with the international dimension of the problems that the debate addresses. He also highlighted a problem, however, and it is a problem that the Scottish Executive must address. As he said, 43 per cent of incidents go unreported, and they go unreported because there is now a lack of confidence in the Executive's policing and justice systems. When I hear the Executive trumpeting the fact that Glasgow now has a domestic abuse court and that people who have been subjected to domestic violence—particularly women—can expect that their case will be dealt with within four months of the incident happening, I have to say that that may be good as far as it goes, but it does not really go very far. We are talking about summary justice, after all, and those cases should be resolved much more timeously. The reason that they are not being resolved much more timeously is that the prosecution system in some parts of Scotland today is in a state of unremitting chaos. When justice is delayed, justice is denied. In no case is that more apposite than in that of domestic violence—which does largely relate to men's violence against women.
Mike Rumbles, in a speech that I found myself agreeing with in large measure, pointed out—to general acceptance, which I was pleased about—that there is a variation when it comes to the question of violence. Undeniably, women are the majority of victims. However, we must not disregard one important aspect: that violence against other sections of society is not unknown—that men are sometimes the victims.
I do not think that that is the point. Does Bill Aitken not accept that this is not the time or the place to introduce that debate? There may be another time and place for that, but not during a debate on the international day for the elimination of violence against women. That is the point that we want to make. There was an issue of abuse in introducing that aspect to speeches, which did the Conservatives no service and no favours.
Far be it from me to rise to the defence of Mr Rumbles—I am tempted to say that he is big enough, and very much ugly enough, to look after himself—but I do not agree with Christine Grahame. Mr Rumbles was perfectly correct to mention that. One of the encouraging aspects of the debate is that the mood has changed since domestic violence was debated three weeks ago. Even when we debated the business motion last week, there was an acknowledgement around the chamber that there is a problem.
I keep coming back to imbalance. I would not for one moment wish you, Presiding Officer, or your colleagues to think that Margaret Mitchell's amendment was attempting to find a way round the motion. We accept that the Presiding Officers rejected the amendment; we accept that that was your decision to make. In her speech, Margaret Mitchell highlighted one of the problems of the debate: that there would inevitably be a degree of repetition unless further material was introduced. That is why I sought last week to curtail this debate; not to prevent the matter from being discussed, but in order that international violence could be addressed in a way that allowed us to move on to other things that we should have been doing.
I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of those who are on the opposite side of that argument. Members all believe profoundly in equality, but when they seek to make any section or group more equal than another, that inevitably makes those others less equal. It is disturbing that the standing orders of the Parliament allowed for the rejection of an amendment on the basis that it was gender neutral. That is regrettable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am in my last minute. We will not seek to divide the chamber this evening—unless Kenny MacAskill upsets us even more than usual—because we recognise that what is being proposed is constructive. On that note, I will finish.
I will say at the outset that the SNP's amendment is meant to add to the Executive motion, not detract from it. I can only reiterate what Christine Grahame and Linda Fabiani said: that we will support the Executive motion. There are three particular points in our amendment. One is on the cultural problem that we face, as was perhaps epitomised by Mr Aitken's comments of a few moments ago. We must address that cultural problem and the fact that people fail to recognise it. As other members mentioned, we also have to address problems relating to the media and the influence of pornography on the mores and culture that permeate our society.
Not at the moment. We must recognise the international aspects of the situation, and that subject was eloquently espoused by Cathy Peattie and by my colleague Linda Fabiani.
We fully support the Executive on this. The Deputy Minister for Communities was perhaps short of time and therefore missed out on what we might perceive as the self-congratulatory part of the Executive speech, which sometimes places us in a quandary when it comes to supporting the Executive. We were spared that, however, and we fully support not just the Executive's tenor and tone, but everything in the minister's speech.
The Minister was correct to point out that the basis of the problem is inequality and the abuse of power. Other members have testified to that. She also made it clear that we must deal with two particular aspects of the matter. We must deal with the victims of crime and we must challenge what causes the problem in the first place. That there are individual and social aspects to the matter is clear, and individual responsibility must be taken by those who perpetrate violence. There must be zero tolerance, as there can be no excuse for an assault, whether we are talking about a slap and a gesture or whatever, as opposed to a serious assault. All assaults are unacceptable, as is violence that involves insidious humiliation. That is equally bad and damaging not only to the victims, but to the victims' families, which suffer and are, to some extent, the non-combatants—other members talked about them in a different sense. The minister was correct to point out such things. She was also right to point out that much of the violence is steeped in poverty and straitened circumstances, although we are aware that the problem permeates all strata of society and that domestic violence is as likely to be found in the house of the law lord as in that of the labourer. We must accept that fact.
Members who argued for gender equality did no service to the debate—in fact, they undermined its whole purpose. In 20 years of working as a matrimonial lawyer, much of which involved domestic violence cases, I never came across one case that involved an abused husband. I accept that there is such abuse, but such cases are a minority and we must not get the two types of case mixed up.
I am glad that the member accepts that such cases exist, but does he agree that gender discrimination cannot be defeated by going down the road of gender discrimination?
Pauline McNeill, Marilyn Livingstone and Christine Grahame have already eloquently made many of the points that need to be made. The fact is that we are here for a purpose. Some chamber debates are not about legislative initiatives, but are simply symbolic or are about addressing cultural mores. Earlier this month, we all observed one minute's silence in the chamber because it was the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. The community in Scotland and the British Isles and throughout many of the western democratic countries and beyond recognises that we must pay tribute to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We should also recognise the wrongs and iniquities of war on such occasions.
Exactly the same applies to this debate. Such debates are taking place not only in this chamber, but in legislatures and jurisdictions elsewhere internationally. The problem that we are debating is significant in this country, but transcends it. We are having a symbolic debate. However, the difference with violence against women is that it is cultural, institutionalised and systemic in many cases. There is violence against male partners in relationships, but it is not institutionalised. Violence against anybody is unacceptable and intolerable, but it is wrong to suggest that the situation of a battered husband is the same as that of a battered wife. We do not see sexual assaults being used as a method of war—which Cathy Peattie and Linda Fabiani talked about—in such cases.
Members should have learned the lesson that has been given by the Presiding Officers—to their credit. The proposed amendment would not have added, but would have detracted from the debate. Seeking to bring the matter into the debate again undermined the ethos of what the chamber is trying to do. The United Nations has expressed what humanity is trying to do. We should halt such violence and ensure that victims do not suffer. As the minister said, we should not only address the problems and individual instances, but attack the mores and cultures that create the problems. Until some members take a long, hard look, we will have to debate the subject ad infinitum. The problem is that they must recognise that such violence is not the same as the slapping of a husband by an irate wife. We are talking about a systematic and cultural problem. In many instances, it is institutionalised. That has been testified to in policies being carried out in the Congo, Rwanda and in eastern and central Europe. That is why we must have this debate.
I have suddenly become conscious of the time, and want to make three key points to summarise. We must recognise that the problem is international, rather than simply a national one, and that we must take actions as individuals and as a Parliament. Other members have testified that the problem is a historical as well as a contemporary one, which is why we must be ever watchful.
Members have accepted and testified to the fact that we have made improvements. Of course we have moved on: women have the right to vote and are no longer seen as chattels to be disposed of with no right even to their child upon separation, divorce or whatever else; however, there are still cultural problems and areas of power inequality that we need to address. I take issue with the idea that we need to go as far as Elaine Smith or Carolyn Leckie would wish, but I accept the fact that a distance has to be travelled to make this a better world, not just for women, but for all humanity.
We have to recognise that the issue is cultural as well as legislative. Not everything can be dealt with by law; we have to take that on board. Nevertheless, the Parliament has the opportunity to send out a clear message that we view violence against women as unacceptable; that we will legislate where we can; and that we will try to ensure that, in our society and our culture, violence against women is intolerable and will be driven out. I just hope that some members will take cognisance of that.
I remind people in the public gallery that it is not appropriate to applaud.
I am proud of the fact that we, in the Scottish Parliament, are playing our small part in tackling a massive global issue. The United Nations has designated today and 25 November every year as the international day for the elimination of violence against women. It is, therefore, regrettable that arguments were made in the debate against having the debate at all.
We are having two debates because we wanted to deal at the beginning of the month with the large issue of domestic abuse, around which there has been a lot of activity, and because, as many members have pointed out, there is a much wider agenda of violence against women that it was important for us to address today. Elaine Smith welcomed our intention to set up an expert group to look strategically at the issue. One purpose of the debate, among several, was to get the opinions of members so that they can be fed into that important piece of strategic work.
The wider objection that came from the Conservative party and Mike Rumbles related to the fact that there is also violence against men. However, as Stewart Stevenson said, to talk of violence against women is not to ignore violence against men. It is very important that we focus on the specific issue. Cathy Jamieson has been leading an initiative relating to knife culture this week—that is a specific issue to focus on. Likewise, it is absolutely right that we focus specifically on the gendered nature of violence against women. That is something that Mike Rumbles fundamentally ignores in making the points that he continually makes on the issue. As Elaine Smith said, it is important for us to see the big picture.
I accept that it is a gender issue. Does the minister accept that domestic violence is not exclusively a gender-based issue?
No one is saying that it is; we are looking at patterns of behaviour. The nature and the scale of women's violence against men, when it occurs, are entirely different and do not take anything away from the fundamentally gendered nature of domestic abuse and violence against women in general.
I will accept the SNP's amendment. I welcome the amendment and the various points that are made in it. The cultural aspect of violence against women has been picked up in various speeches. For example, Carolyn Leckie talked about the normalisation of violence against women in the media, which is an important dimension. Unless we address the broader cultural and social determinants of violence against women, we cannot deal with the issue.
Rosie Kane highlighted the importance of prevention. Our agenda—which came originally from agendas that were created by women's organisations long before the Scottish Parliament existed—is based around the three Ps of prevention, protection and provision. As Rosie Kane said, we must start with children. There are various initiatives that help, such as the respect campaign that is run by the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust, which is used in schools. That must be a key part of our agenda.
Along with Shiona Baird and Pauline McNeill, Rosie Kane also majored on the issue of human trafficking, which is fundamentally a crime that is committed by men against women and children. I want to mention two initiatives to address that. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 contains provision to make trafficking for the purposes of exploitation a criminal offence. The commencement order was made earlier this month, and the new offences will come into force in Scotland on 1 December, incurring a maximum penalty of 14 years. There is also a project in Glasgow, funded by the violence against women fund, to develop work on the issue of trafficking for the purposes of prostitution and to ensure that appropriate services are in place for individual women. That is one of several projects that are funded by the violence against women fund.
Pauline McNeill and Elaine Smith mentioned the proposal for a rape and sexual assault centre in Glasgow. Officials from the Health, Justice and Development Departments have met project members to explore how that proposal can be progressed. I viewed the proposal very positively when I was the Minister for Health and Community Care and will do the same as the Minister for Communities.
Part of the purpose of today's debate is to open up the wider agenda around issues of violence against women. Donald Gorrie and Pauline McNeill talked about prostitution from different perspectives. As members know, an expert group on prostitution is considering the issues related to that and its report will be submitted to the Minister for Justice shortly.
As part of an impassioned speech on the international struggle against violence against women, Cathy Peattie spoke about female genital mutilation. As members know, at the end of October we introduced to the Parliament the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill to strengthen the existing legal protection against female genital mutilation.
Carolyn Leckie, Donald Gorrie and Mary Scanlon talked about rape and the problems that exist in that area with the law. We have asked the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a review of the law relating to rape and other serious sexual offences and to make recommendations. For Mary Scanlon's interest, I point out that the review will include male-against-male rape. The Crown Office is also conducting a review of its investigation and prosecution of rape and serious sexual assaults.
Carolyn Leckie and Elaine Smith raised the important issue of pornography. I agree that we need a serious debate about that issue. I also agree with Carolyn Leckie that pornography is predicated on abuse and I look forward to the Equal Opportunities Committee's consideration of the matter.
Christine Grahame raised several issues in her speech, including that of domestic abuse courts. I was pleased to launch such a court in Glasgow in October. The member suggested that the issue might better be dealt with by family law courts. I hesitate to get into a dispute with a lawyer, but the basic point is that domestic abuse and violence against women is a criminal offence and should therefore be dealt with by a criminal court, rather than a civil court. That is a key message for us.
Christine Grahame also rightly reminded us of the use of rape as a weapon of war. We all share the horror and revulsion that she feels at stories of the systematic use of rape in war throughout the world. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity that are rightly outlawed under domestic and international law. I am sure that the Parliament joins me in deploring their occurrence.
There is no one in the chair to tell me how much longer I have, so I will continue. Christine Grahame asked whether people knew about the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. An evaluation of that issue was carried out, as a result of which the Executive wrote to more than 180 organisations this August to remind them of the remedies that are available under Scots law to protect against abuse. The act has also been publicised in other ways. There has been progress, but I accept fully that much more must be done.
Christine Grahame also asked about the evaluation of advertising campaigns, which shows that the adverts result in greater public awareness. The member recognised that point in the previous debate on this issue, when she pointed out that there were far more calls to the domestic abuse helpline following the advertisements.
I remind those in the Parliament who, unfortunately, expressed concerns about today's debate that violence against women is but one type of violence in our society. Margaret Mitchell mentioned Scotland's homicide figures. Of course the figures that were published yesterday are too high, although there has been a recent welcome fall. Too many Scots are still being injured or killed at the hands of young men with knives, in particular. As the Minister for Justice said yesterday:
"too many young men carry a knife … perhaps because they think it makes them look hard or in the mistaken belief that this will give them some form of protection."
The Executive is turning its attention to that issue. Earlier this week, the First Minister outlined a range of new proposals to tackle the problem. The new measures that the Executive will develop in further detail as part of a wider strategy to tackle violence will mark a major step towards ending the problem. Such targeted approaches to specific issues are the right way forward.
In the same way, tackling the specific gendered nature of violence against women is the right way forward, if we are serious about challenging the occurrence of such violence.
Work to develop a strategy on violence against women is in its early stages and I am pleased that the Parliament has had an opportunity today to give its input to the debate. Work will progress under the banner of the national group to address violence against women and I am sure that the Parliament will maintain its commitment to eliminate violence against women in Scotland and will continue to support work in that direction.
I thank the many magnificent speakers we have had in what has been a splendid debate.
We should come now to decision time, but I regret to inform members that we have a slight problem with the electronic voting system. I propose to suspend the meeting for three minutes in an attempt to allow the system to be rebooted.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—