Chamber and committees

It is very concerning that the legislation that was passed by the Parliament five years ago to give women and girls extra protection from genital mutilation remains unimplemented. That failure has directly impacted women and girls in Scotland, including the more than 1,200 who have been treated for genital mutilation in Glasgow over the past five years. Will the minister commit to meeting members from all the front benches, to discuss how we can ensure that the legislation’s implementation happens before the parliamentary session ends? Will she also accept that, if that is the timetable, it is completely unacceptable?

I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour and to reaffirm our support for the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

For more than 30 years, the 16 days campaign has raised international awareness of gender-based violence and the need for action to tackle it. We commend the work of the campaign and the thousands of organisations, including those in Scotland, that have supported it. This year’s 16 days campaign is welcome, as it highlights the growing threat that online spaces, services and technologies pose in relation to gender-based violence.

Digital violence is now one of the fastest-growing forms of the abuse of women and girls, with digital tools being used by men to engage in harassment and abuse on a daily basis. Digital tools have empowered men and boys to engage in new kinds of abuse and violence, such as revenge porn, deepfakes, catfishing and trolling. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s proposal on deepfakes and I look forward to considering it in detail. Digital violence also negatively impacts the mental health and wellbeing of women and girls. It often leads to offline forms of abuse and violence, including femicide.

The level of digital violence that is experienced and witnessed by women and girls in Scotland is particularly shocking. More than a third of women in Scotland have witnessed online violence and more than one in six have experienced it. Online violence is an even greater problem among younger women in Scotland, with nearly 30 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds having experienced it. Six in 10 of the women who have experienced online violence also reported enduring negative impacts on their mental health and wellbeing.

Women and girls across Scotland lack confidence in the Scottish Government and Police Scotland to tackle online violence. More than three quarters of women who reported online violence were not satisfied with the outcome, and more than 60 per cent of women believe that the police lack the necessary resources to tackle online violence. Women and girls in Scotland are more likely to seek support from friends than from the police when they experience online violence, and less than 15 per cent of women have confidence that the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to tackle online violence.

Earlier in this parliamentary session, I was pleased to lead, alongside Pauline McNeill MSP, Scottish Labour’s consultation on ending violence against women and girls. Respondents to our consultation made it clear that there must be better controls available on online platforms and that social media companies should be legally accountable for online violence that occurs on their platforms. Although the Online Safety Act 2023 and Ofcom’s new guidelines on improving online safety for women and girls are welcome, there is clearly much more that can be done, such as exploring the introduction of legal requirements for social media companies. Respondents also highlighted the need for Police Scotland to be better resourced and for specific offences to be created in relation to cyberflashing and the creation of intimate images.

Although the Scottish Government’s motion focuses on digital violence, we must also recognise that the issue affects women and girls in all areas of life, including in public spaces such as schools and workplaces. I commend trade unions such as Unite, Unison, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and many others that have published reports in recent years outlining the growing scale of the problem.

The NASUWT found that nearly half of female teachers in Scotland have experienced physical abuse or violence from pupils in the past year. The public sector trade union Unison has exposed the shocking rates of violence faced by workers across the public sector. Unite, the RMT and the TSSA have highlighted the increase in violence and sexual attacks on our trains and buses, particularly against female members of staff. The transport unions are calling for a specific offence of assaulting a public sector transport worker, similar to the one that we created for retail workers. Sexual harassment is endemic in Scotland’s workplaces, with nearly 10 per cent of women workers having experienced work-related sexual assault.

However, despite the alarming scale of violence across Scotland, we must accept that Government efforts have been largely ineffective in tackling the issue. Just a third of Scotland’s schools are signed up to the equally safe programme. Less than half of the rape and attempted rape cases that make it to court result in a conviction. Domestic abuse and sexual crimes are reportedly on the rise. Cuts have been made to funding for Rape Crisis and other support services for women and girls who experience violence. In my region, there are campaigns for closed-circuit television to be installed in parks after rape and sexual assaults have taken place. Our train network has fewer staff and reduced ticket office opening hours. As Tess White said, the Scottish Government also abandoned its misogyny bill.

There are clear actions that the Scottish Government could take now that would help to tackle violence against women and girls. For example, we must introduce a cross-campus strategy in all our schools to address sexism, misogyny and the growing influence of far-right social media on the behaviour of young men and boys in schools and other educational institutions across Scotland.

I welcome today’s debate, but I hope that, in the coming budget, ministers will provide sustainable funding for support services for women and girls, including funding for an expansion of the pilot of independent legal representation for rape victims and reliable funding for Rape Crisis and Scottish Women’s Aid.

Scottish Labour will support the Scottish Government’s motion due to our shared commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, but we are clear that more can and must be done, and we will work across the chamber to achieve that.

The only new designations that would automatically take place as a result of the bill would be those under section 3, on publicly owned companies. People can already make FOI requests about those companies, but any requests would have to be made to the public body that owned the company in question. We hope that there will be savings, because it will no longer be necessary to go to the parent body, which would otherwise have to retrieve the information from the publicly owned body and then provide it to the member of the public or whoever made the FOI request. In drafting the financial memorandum, we looked at those organisations. We costed in that there may be a cost for the publicly owned body, but we hope that that cost would be transferred from the organisation that owns it.

The evidence that the committee has heard and, indeed, the evidence that was put before me is that there is a very wide range of views and evidence on the cost of an FOI request. The amount that different organisations spend varies tremendously. Sometimes, the cost is said to be related to the efficiency of the organisation’s systems and the amount of resource that it decides to put into FOI compliance.

The policy intention behind the bill is to reduce cost, and we hope that that will happen through standardisation and the codes of practice. However, we recognise that when there is a designation of a new body—it could be a very large body—there will be costs for that body, and we have outlined those in the financial memorandum.

In general, those costs will not be borne directly by the Scottish Government; they will be borne by the new body. That body might be a multinational company, a third sector organisation or a charity. It could also be a private body—for example, it could be a privately owned care home, if the Parliament decided to go down that path. However, all those matters will be looked at by the Parliament when the Scottish ministers come forward with a recommendation for a designation or, indeed, if the Parliament decides to use the designation mechanism that is proposed in the bill.

That is a bigger question. Why Governments do not always act as quickly as they could is not a party-political question. I suppose that they listen to stakeholders from all sides and always face pressures not to act as well as pressures to act. It is difficult to explain why decisions are taken not to act, but I presume that it is because matters are complex.

You have heard evidence about stock transfers. When council houses moved to housing associations and other bodies, there was a loss of rights and it took 13 years for those to be brought back. There has been a loss of rights in many sectors, such as when there was outsourcing in the justice sector—there is no sign of those services coming back to being run by the Scottish Government. Rights have been lost and political decisions have not been made to maintain those after services have been transferred.

As you have heard in evidence, ScotRail is now back in public ownership, because of which we have FOI rights again. Designation does not seem to have been significantly onerous for that body. The housing associations and other bodies that are now required to comply with the legislation receive only a relatively small number of requests.

It would strengthen the commissioner’s position and help to drive the bill’s intention, which is to ensure transparency, accountability and openness. Part of the reason is to ensure better use of the public pound and better public policy.

I fully recognise those points, which would be a matter for the committee system. Presumably, something would have to be seen by the committees as a political priority. In the aftermath of Covid, care homes might have been considered a political priority and an area that a parliamentary committee would identify to launch an inquiry into, whereas that is far less likely to happen for areas on which there is perhaps less public attention.

My proposal is to make available an additional mechanism, which would strengthen the role of the Parliament to hold the Government to account.

Do you mean the section 5 reports to the Parliament?

It could be in standing orders. It might be something that the relevant committee would look at. For example, in the case of a large sector, the committee might have a view on the timetable for implementation. In the case of a single body and a relatively discrete matter, the committee might take the view that implementation could happen either immediately or very quickly—say, within a month, three months or six months. I do not think that it would be appropriate to put that in the bill, because it would depend on the designation.

I thank the committee for allowing me to appear today and for the work that you are undertaking to scrutinise this member’s bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all those who have engaged with the process: those who responded to both consultations, those who attended events, those who met me to discuss the bill and those who have taken part in the committee’s proceedings. In particular, I thank Carole Ewart, from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, who has worked with me throughout the process, and the Scottish Information Commissioner and his office, who have worked with us on some of the details.

The bill attempts to bring together work that has been carried out over a number of parliamentary sessions and the recommendations of the four Scottish Information Commissioners who have been appointed since the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) Act 2002 was enacted. The bill contains a set of specific technical proposals, which have considerable support; it also makes provision to give the Parliament a power through its committee system that could lead to a parliamentary vote to designate a body.

The Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s review of the 2002 act, which was conducted in the previous parliamentary session, made recommendations that are included in the bill, such as the introduction of a “pause the clock” mechanism and recommendations to ensure proactive disclosure in a more systematic and accessible format for the public.

Successive Information Commissioners have consistently recommended modernising the operation of FOISA, including expanding FOI coverage to more public functions, improving record keeping and information management, and enhancing the commissioner’s power to ensure compliance.

The bill is also a recognition that rights have been lost in many sectors due to outsourcing. My bill seeks to reflect on the practical recommendations that have been made, and we have attempted to respond to, and reflect in the bill’s provisions, the issues that have been raised by stakeholders during the process. I had a number of meetings with the former minister during the process.

Carole Ewart and I are happy to answer questions.

I will focus on the issues that you specifically mentioned.

People have argued, over many years, for proactive publication, and it has been recommended by Information Commissioners and other stakeholders who work regularly with freedom of information. The proposals around proactive publication are also based on what has happened in other jurisdictions. The view is that, although the 2002 act was framed with the best of intentions, the reality is that the publication schemes have not worked. The proposals have been developed over many years, and there is a great deal of consensus around them among those who are interested in and engaged with the issues, who see them as a more effective way to take things forward. In particular, all four Information Commissioners support the proposals in the bill. We have moved forward on the basis of that consensus among all the stakeholders, who tend to be people who are quite actively involved in FOI.

On the new offence, I heard last week’s evidence. The new offence is in addition to offences that are already on the statute book but that are very rarely used. It is hoped that the offence will have a deterrent effect—that is how it was envisaged. It has been proposed as a result of a specific set of circumstances, but it is hoped that it will never be used. Basically, it deals with a loophole that has been discovered. Again, the proposal has the full support of the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office. Indeed, we worked with it on this and other parts of the bill to ensure that they were drafted in a way that was workable for that office.