Chamber and committees

For the record, just before I leave this—I know that the convener wants to come back in—you will submit yourself to the full scrutiny of Audit Scotland if it looks under the covers of what is happening in any green freeport in Scotland. Just a simple yes or no will be fine.

In using the term “trading broke”, I am referring to the debt to GDP ratio. Debt is 98 per cent of UK GDP.

Thank you very much.

I thank my friend and colleague Ruth Maguire for bringing the debate to the chamber.

“As long as women are seen as a legal commodity to be bought by men, there will be no significant shift in men’s violence against women. The ability fundamentally fosters a sense of male entitlement and ownership that permeates every aspect of our society.”

In addition,

“The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is unequivocal. States must address trafficking and prostitution if they are to eliminate discrimination ... against women.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2023; c 53, 52.]

That must be the starting point of our discussion. The words that I have stated are simply a quote from a speech that I made previously in this Parliament.

As we know, the Scottish Parliament opened in 1999. If we look at the record of the Parliament’s first session, we see that the issues of prostitution and the need for legal reforms to protect women and girls and to prevent child prostitution were raised in debates, in committees and in ministerial questioning. It was an area that was pursued with vigour by a number of members from different parties and, not least, the redoubtable Margo MacDonald. Discussions have continued through multiple parliamentary sessions since.

We have heard from Ruth Maguire about those countries that have managed to make a shift to combat demand for prostitution by criminalising paying for sex while decriminalising the victims of sexual exploitation. That means that there is a data bank that we can interrogate, be it data on public attitudes, deterrence or the all-important trafficking, which Rhoda Grant mentioned. However, here we are, 25 years after Sweden acted and 25 years after the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and we are still debating rather than having acted.

I, too, note the excellent report by A Model for Scotland, which recognises that

“the Scottish Government has pledged to adopt a model for Scotland to challenge men’s demand for prostitution and support women to exit sexual exploitation. It has also developed policy principles to underpin Scotland’s framework on prostitution.”

However, I must be frank. Pledges and principles are not enough. We should have acted years before now. Warm words and principles without action quite quickly become virtue signalling.

Violence against women and girls continues. Just recently, data pertaining to 2022-23 was released by the Scottish Government, from which I will give five key points. Nearly 15,000 sexual crimes were recorded by Police Scotland, and at least 37 per cent of those relate to a victim under the age of 18. Nearly 4,000 sexual crimes were cybercrimes, which is a trebling of the figure of around 1,000 that were reported in 2013-14. More than one in six women in Scotland have experienced online violence, and nearly 2,000 online child sex abuse crimes were recorded.

The most recent data from the Scottish crime and justice survey of 2019-20 showed that only 22 per cent of victims and survivors of rape reported it to the police. One in 10 people in Scotland still thinks that women often lie about being raped, and nearly one in three continues to believe that rape results from men being unable to control their need for sex. There is clearly no room for complacency.

I, too, express the view that the Government is currently consulting on niche issues that seem to be given higher priority than the protection of women and girls. Ideologies that are antithetical to the interests of women are given priority.

What I seek from the minister is a clear timeline for taking legislative action. I appreciate the complexity—I think that we all do—but it is being done elsewhere, so why not in Scotland? As Diane Martin, the chair of A Model for Scotland—who has already been mentioned—so eloquently put it in the report’s forward,

“The role of government must be to end male violence against women—not to mitigate or legitimise it.”

Let us make that our north star.

In relation to the earlier discussions about student numbers, I checked the UCAS clearing table, which shows that, in 2019, there were 28,750 Scotland-domiciled students. Setting aside a range of other factors, which we all understand, if there was a reduction of 1,200 from the 2023 figure, which was 30,050, that would take us back to 28,850, which compares very favourably with the 28,750 in 2019. I thought it that would be helpful to put that on the record. Do you have anything to add to that?

Thank you.

Absolutely—fair dos.

I want to explore that a bit more. I absolutely agree with you about the constraints on pay and the difficulty of the budget, but how specifically will you be able to support agencies in squaring that circle—to use a horrible analogy? They will be required to deliver to budget—exactly as the Scottish Government is required to do—and to make those changes at the same time and manage the very real issues that they have with the cost base. My question is really about how you see your role in supporting agencies with those conflicting demands.

Last week in the chamber, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Michael Matheson, gave a speech with which I strongly agreed. He emphasised the need for culture change and talked about some of the work that is being done on that. I intervened to comment that, because of my previous life experience, I know that changing culture as part of general change programmes is the hardest thing to do. Do you think that the culture within the civil service, national agencies and local authorities needs to change? Do you back up what Professor Humes from the University of Stirling described in a previous evidence session as “a cosy conformity” in the culture? If so, in what ways does it need to change?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I thank the rest of the panel for attending as well.

Before other members come in on the budget, I want to discuss briefly public sector reform, which was trailed extensively, although the budget does not contain any specific plans for how that will happen. I appreciate that the issue is complex and challenging, and that real costs are associated. I understand that the approach thus far is for some 129 agencies to look at where they could make improvements. Arguably, that is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I therefore want to explore with you, from the perspective of your portfolio, your understanding of the approach that is being taken. Is it top down or will it work in alignment with your education reform programme—in which case, how will you dovetail that programme, which is extensive enough, with the wider public sector reform?

I have a couple of follow-on questions. Purely in terms of delivery, if the deadline was 10 years hence and there were no electoral cycles, the approach that one would choose to adopt—and public pressure—might be different to what they will be given intervening events such as elections. How will you square the nuanced approach and the pressure that there will be for demonstrable delivery, cabinet secretary? People will be crying out for real, evident change but with a nuanced approach against a 10-year delivery plan. Perhaps you can reflect on some of the complexities that you see in that.