Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary seems to be saying that amendments 309 to 312 and 329 are not required, because the bill will require that landlords adopt a domestic abuse policy and that the rights set out in the amendments are likely to be included in such policies. Of course, those specific rights might be included, but they also might not be.

The purpose of those amendments is—as, indeed, the purpose of the bill should be—to ensure that those rights are definitely in law and that we are not reliant on individual social landlords up and down Scotland to develop their own policies that might or might not include them.

I very much hope that the amendments will be agreed to today, or that social landlords are listening and that they will ensure that such rights are put into any policies that are developed, because we have to ensure that individual tenants who are subjected to domestic abuse have those protections.

I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary will come forward with regulations by Christmas to deal with what is in the first part of my amendment 328. She has indicated that she might have concerns about the second part of it and that she plans to come forward with regulations relating to the points that it raises. I would be grateful if I received an assurance from the cabinet secretary that she has the statutory basis for doing that and that the regulations will fully encompass the points that are being raised.

We need the law and the policy to give the necessary protections to those who stay at home when they are subjected to domestic abuse as well as to those who decide that they have to leave. The cabinet secretary has stated on a number of occasions, including in writing to me, that the Scottish Government’s position is that victims should have protections to be able to stay. Equally, we need to ensure that we have the housing rights in place for situations where victims who have been subjected to domestic abuse feel, for whatever reason, that they have to leave.

That is the scenario that amendment 328 attempts to deal with. It has been drafted to address a gap in the law that has been highlighted by many social landlords, many campaigners on the rights of women who have been subjected to domestic abuse, and those who work in the housing sector. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at the matter again. She has said that she will not be able to support the amendment, but I hope that, in any process, she will ensure that there are no gaps, because that is the issue that is being brought to me and many other members. My concern is that, because of the way in which the bill is drafted, it will not enable us to close all the gaps that clearly exist for women who are in this situation.

I apologise—I cannot take one.

I ask the Scottish Government to consider making a direct award under section 45 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to that specific procurement exercise, and I reiterate the calls in Paul Sweeney’s motion for a national shipbuilding strategy in Scotland that recognises the strategic importance of shipbuilding to this country.

I congratulate Paul Sweeney on securing this important debate. The shipbuilding industry is of historic importance to many communities across Scotland, and it continues to play a significant part in our economy today.

The deal that has been secured by the UK Government with Norway to provide at least five frigates will bring jobs and continued work for Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. The deal follows on from other contracts secured from the Royal Navy by Scotland’s shipyards, including Ferguson Marine, which will be involved in fabricating components for HMS Birmingham.

There is still a clear need, however, for a comprehensive national shipbuilding strategy for Scotland, particularly when we consider the current position that Ferguson’s finds itself in as the Clyde’s last non-naval shipyard. Ferguson’s employs around 300 highly skilled workers and apprentices, and it has been a vital part of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry for more than a century now, delivering a third of the current CalMac Ferries fleet.

The yard is also vital for the local economy in Inverclyde; continued failure by the Scottish Government to deliver on the promised investment or to help the yard secure work is creating uncertainty about the yard’s future. Last year, the Scottish Government pledged to invest £14.2 million in modern equipment at Ferguson’s, yet only £600,000 has been invested so far, and procurement notices for new machinery have lapsed.

I would therefore be grateful if the minister could provide an update today on when the remaining promised investment will be delivered at Ferguson’s. The yard lost out on the CalMac order for seven small electric ferries earlier this year, not because of doubts about the quality of the yard’s bid, but because its bid was undercut on price. Concerns have been raised that social value was not considered—or was not considered sufficiently—in that decision, or indeed in other decisions that have been made. In other parts of the UK, the UK Government has now placed a minimum 10 per cent social value weighting element into the assessments of bids for shipbuilding contracts, and I support the points that Paul Sweeney made in his speech in that regard.

When I raised that very point with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government last week, she said that social value weighting was already included in current procurement legislation. I would be grateful for clarity from the minister on social value being included in procurement and at least matching the 10 per cent minimum that is required in other parts of the UK, because we know that that has not been the case in previous processes.

I also made the case for direct awards last week, which is lawful for essential infrastructure such as ferries. I understand that the UK Government has written to Scottish ministers about extending UK procurement legislation to Scotland. It would be helpful if the minister could outline what engagement, if any, is taking place with UK ministers on procurement legislation, the ability to make direct awards and the ability to maximise social value in any procurement policies.

Last week, I urged the cabinet secretary to make a direct award to Ferguson Marine for the replacement of MV Lord of the Isles. That call is supported by the workers, unions, Ferguson Marine itself, businesses and the local community across the west of Scotland.

Thank you.

It is clear that you are involved in a range of work, involving many agencies and individuals. As you say, you are also looking at the recommendations and attempting to implement them. I appreciate that you are not at the end of that work but, based on the work that you have done so far, what would you point to as being the major drivers for the increase of drug deaths?

I understand. Is any further guidance likely to be provided for the implementation?

I want to ask about drug deaths in custody in prison. There are unacceptably high levels of drug deaths, and no death is acceptable. One witness told us that

“We have not looked enough at the drivers of the increased number of deaths in prisons.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 June 2025; c 47.]

It would be interesting to know whether you agree with that statement and to hear your thoughts on what the drivers are. Do the determinations of fatal accident inquiries give us some of the insights that we need? I appreciate that you have already referred to the rise in the strength of the drugs that are in prisons, cabinet secretary—I do not know who would be best to comment on that first.

You made that point clearly, right at the beginning of the evidence session. Liam Kerr also raised the issue of overcrowding—we have heard evidence that the boredom that people face and the lack of meaningful activity are another driver that drives people to drugs.

We have heard evidence that toxicology results of drug tests can generally take up to 18 months, which can delay learning. Are you looking at that? Is that an accurate reflection of the situation?

That would be extremely helpful. Any further information about delays that could be addressed would be of interest to the committee.

I agree that there should not be a gap in hate crime legislation, so it is quite right that the Scottish Government is coming forward with proposals. Leaving aside all the debates around the misogyny bill for now—I appreciate that we may come back to that in relation to new offences and that these proposals are perhaps a different and additional approach—I note that Engender thinks that

“the hate crimes model was not designed to address the nature and scale of”

violence and discrimination against women. Moreover, the working group said that it would be very difficult to prove that a specific act had happened based on sex.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with those points? If so, how has that element been taken into account in the drafting of the SSI? Has there been consideration as to whether it is simply a matter of slotting in the word “sex”, which seems to be the case in the SSI, or whether the matter needs to be addressed in a different way, with further redrafting? Did the cabinet secretary grapple with or have discussions with officials about the issue?