Chamber and committees

That is very helpful. Thank you. It would be helpful to include in your report a sentence that sets out the fact that you have static representation but a very dynamic process. You have basically answered my question regarding what I wanted to hear.

Members will know that, if I can profess any experience or expertise in the chamber, it tends towards economic, business and financial matters. They will therefore be relieved to know that I intend to keep my remarks short. My interest in the bill is in part 2—that is, the domestic abuse and suicide prevention sections. My remarks will be limited to that part.

Domestic abuse is a crime that is almost exclusively perpetrated by men. While it is sometimes perpetrated by men on men, it is most frequently perpetrated by men on women. There is no change there.

Members will know of my interest, which is shared by members across the parties in the Parliament, in non-fatal strangulation. It is for that reason that I have started to consider a potential amendment for stage 2, whereby the bill would explicitly enable reviews to access data on earlier instances of non-fatal strangulation. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me to discuss the issue, and I look forward—I hope—to working with her in due course as we approach stage 2.

I believe that non-fatal strangulation is becoming a pervasive and pernicious problem. We can make progress against it in multiple ways, including by building awareness through social policy and a range of criminal legislation considerations. I hope that members across the chamber who are as concerned as I am will look at any and all legislation to start to effect change. Consideration of the provisions of the bill that is before us will allow for a step forward, but, of course, the bill is in no way the be-all and end-all.

I note, too, the efforts of Fiona Drouet on behalf of her daughter, Emily, and I acknowledge the comments in that regard that have been made thus far by my colleagues Rona Mackay and Pam Gosal, neither of whom is currently in her place in the chamber.

Why do I think that there could be a fit? Strangulation can occur as part and parcel of coercive control in a domestic situation and can result in death, either as a direct cause or as an indirect cause, when it leads to suicide, as happened in Emily’s case.

Non-fatal strangulation often indicates early-days coercive control and could act as an early warning trigger. It is therefore essential that any reviews are able to access information on its occurrence. Underpinning all of that is the importance of data. Multiple data collection points could occur across agencies, so having a multi-agency statutory framework for the domestic homicide and suicide review model that could start to collect the data would be helpful. The collection of data across justice, health, social care, local government and third sector agencies will not only help reviews but start to provide the data sets on prevalence and, therefore, to drive change.

Any death that is caused by domestic violence is completely unacceptable, but we need to be able to respond to new threats if we are to prevent further deaths. It has been observed that, because Scotland has not had such reviews thus far, it can learn from other countries that have, such as England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other jurisdictions. I agree, but I make the distinction that it is about not only the what but the how. Great care will need to be taken in devising processes that allow for data to be collected in the right format, given the complexity of such situations. That will be an important part of the review oversight committee’s role.

I am grateful to Acting Chief Constable Steve Johnson for meeting me to discuss the subject. He helped me to understand, with reference to Police Scotland, how data on non-fatal strangulation is often not currently collected. Often, no hard or quantitative data is collected. If it is, it appears in long form. Apart from through an officer’s curiosity, data cannot easily be probed, especially by using big-data tools or artificial intelligence. Without such data, we cannot assess prevalence. Beira’s Place assesses that the incidence of such strangulation is 20 per cent higher than is currently reported. I make that point because I believe that legislation will drive behavioural change among various bodies in collecting data. If they cannot report on the practice, they cannot effectively change it.

I will make a few further short points on part 2 of the bill. Professor Devaney’s paper notes:

“Whilst the deaths of individuals through illness and accidents have been closely monitored, those resulting from domestic homicide are more difficult to ascertain because the perpetrators, usually intimate partners, and occasionally other family members, are less likely to be forthcoming about the circumstances due to the inevitable legal consequences”

and public condemnation.

I feel that we also need to reflect on the role of shame in this context, because that is a blocker for both the perpetrator and the victim in a case of non-fatal strangulation. As the Criminal Justice Committee’s convener noted earlier, the review processes will work in practice to minimise such impacts. I noted the Scottish Government’s responses to the committee’s recommendations, which contain a lot of good detail and consideration. I applaud that, because it is a very complex matter.

My final comment is on report anonymisation, which is very difficult to achieve in practice. For example, a death might be highly publicised and picked up on by the media. It would take only one lawyer of the type depicted in “Better Call Saul” who operate in that space to publicise it even further and make the job of anonymisation that much harder.

I suspect that we could talk about this for quite a long time, as it is a massive topic. However, one area that you have not given me quite enough information on yet is how you support industry to understand the juggernaut that is coming down the track.

Good morning. Thank you very much for attending. I have found the discussion very interesting.

One area that we have not touched on is the unknown unknowns for employers. Looking at artificial intelligence and its impact on a whole range of sectors—virtually everything—we have seen clear evidence of unknown unknowns with the green transition, which we have touched on a wee bit. I would like your reflections on how you are taking account of unknown unknowns, using AI as an example. How on earth do you help support people in industry when they also do not know what they do not know—in other words, when they do not know what they need?

Do you mean how they do business?

That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence.

Good morning. Thanks for joining us. My question arguably follows on from Daniel Johnson’s question.

Recommendation 1 in your report is that there should be a new culture of leadership. We have talked about leadership, but I want to probe a bit more about culture and what you have seen since you produced your report, in 2023. I assume that you meant much more than not focusing only on university degrees as being the appropriate route and much more than that it was a fragmented landscape. Given your summary that

“Culture does not shift easily”,

what changes have you seen in the culture thus far?

Classic. Absolutely. Thank you very much for that.

The project willow study represents the art of the possible, but funding and business appetite will always be the drivers. The £200 million that may be available to draw down depends on projects being investable solutions according to the National Wealth Fund’s criteria, not the UK Government. Business will take a risk only if there is policy and regulatory certainty, which there is not. How confident is the cabinet secretary that anything will come of the report? Does she recognise that the matter is, quite frankly, another of UK Labour’s failures for Scotland?

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the recent “UK Living Standards Review 2025”, from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, and any implications for its work to grow Scotland’s economy. (S6F-03926)