Chamber and committees

That answers my question for now. I appreciate that, given that we do not have the bill in front of us, there are a lot of areas that you are unable to cover this morning. The broader point that I am making is that this Parliament has a bad habit of passing legislation without implementing the provisions that should follow. If the misogyny bill is introduced, will there be a full-scale cross-portfolio review of previous legislation relating to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls with provisions that have not been enacted? We came across that issue in the last session of Parliament, and I do not want history to repeat itself in this session of Parliament, because it could be that we are pursuing something that might already exist and could be implemented.

I have a quick question about power of attorney waiting times, which have been discussed. It would be helpful if the minister could provide an overview of what the Government is doing to drive down those waiting times.

On a different issue, potential human trafficking was reported in the news this morning. In one of Police Scotland’s biggest operations, it targeted an organised crime group. I understand that the issue covers various portfolios, but, given that the case spans Aberdeen, Dundee, Falkirk, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Midlothian and the Borders, it would be good to hear what cross-portfolio work is being done to tackle organised crime. That feeds into the community cohesion work, too.

The discussion that we have been having is important, but I would like to move to the proposed human rights legislation that will be introduced in year 2. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the Scottish Government not to “replace or duplicate” the legal protections that are already in place for sex-based rights. How does the minister see that integrating with the future human rights bill that will be travelling through Parliament? Is she concerned that a bill of that nature could stray into reserved matters?

I appreciate that. There has already been discussion of how the bill might conflict with sex and gender. You will be aware of the round-table discussions at which questions were asked in relation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—CEDAW. What is your interpretation of CEDAW?

It would be good to have a greater understanding of the issue, as Holly Bruce has rightly pointed out. The questions could be asked in relation to both the instruments, so I suggest that we defer consideration of both, because they are on the same issue. There might be questions in both areas.

I echo the point that tackling violence against women and girls will be top of the agenda, and rightly so. It will shape a lot of the work that we do in the committee. We must hear from women’s groups—that is widely understood—and particularly from those who are campaigning for prevention of violence and coming forward with solutions. However, I think that one key thing is missing, and I would be interested to hear the panel’s view on this: engaging and mobilising men’s groups. We are discussing the behaviour and culture of men without having men in the room. They have to form part of the discussion if we are looking for role models or ways in which to alter how we tackle violence against women and girls. I am interested in the witnesses’ views on that approach, which I hope will form part of the solution to the issues that we are experiencing in our society.

I think that what will be important is the interaction between the Supreme Court ruling and, as you say, the definitions that are contained in the bill. That was really helpful. Thank you.

I apologise for being late this morning.

I have a question about CEDAW, which is an interesting part of the human rights legislation that we will potentially be looking into soon. Following on from Amanda Lindsay’s point, my understanding is that CEDAW’s text is sex-based. Is that the lens through which the consultation has looked at it? Would it be the case that we are looking at it as a sex-based right that we are looking to incorporate into human rights legislation?

I have supported the campaign since it began back in the previous session of the Parliament. The work that has been undertaken by Lynne McRitchie and other mums, particularly those in the Motherwell and Wishaw area, can only be commended, because they want what is best for mums, parents and vulnerable babies.

“The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”, which is not the only plan that relates to neonatal and maternity services, paints a very clouded picture of the provision that is available, what the proposals will mean for new parents and their newborns and what maternity and neonatal services will look like in the future. We have had too many reviews, and the Scottish Government has not implemented their recommendations. Downgrading of neonatal departments—particularly those in my region—is causing concern to a lot of families in those areas.

I still do not understand why the Government has not chosen to have five neonatal specialist departments instead of three. Even now, that has not been properly explained. I do not believe that the Government can continue with the downgrading without assessing all the issues that have been put on the table by the petitioner and by MSPs, who have been seeking clarity and answers to questions for quite some time.

I refer members to my recent question to the Government about when the neonatal departments would be downgraded. I received a response on 1 September, but we still do not have an answer. That puts families in limbo and makes expectant mums fearful about what might happen. If the Government is serious about implementing the best start plan, it must be honest with the mums, children and families who will be impacted.

A lot of things are in limbo, and I do not believe that the petition should be closed when we still have so many unanswered questions. The least that we can do—if we are not fighting the proposals, which I will continue to do—is get answers for the mums and families who will be impacted.

10:30

Thank you. I welcome colleagues’ comments. This petition was lodged in 2022, and I welcome the efforts by this group of petitioners to continue the conversation about whistleblowing and the need for a national discussion on how we change whistleblowing, not just to make whistleblowing safe for public sector employees, but to ensure that we safeguard children. The point is well made that the issue links directly to what we are seeing in relation to grooming gangs and the wider issues around child safeguarding.

If I may make a further suggestion, I understand that the convener has set out the Scottish Government’s response in relation to phase 11 of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, but I wonder whether the committee would seek clarification from the Scottish Government that that work will include whistleblowing. The response is generic—I understand that the Government is trying to provide an overview—but it would be helpful, not just for the committee but for the petitioners, to know that whistleblowing will be at the heart of the work that the Government is undertaking. I say that because we must ensure that the measures that will be considered and the recommendations that follow, and that are then put into practice in terms of policy, will be followed. For that reason, we need to know exactly what the work will include.