Chamber and committees

Yes. It has given a perspective, which is helpful.

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that setting up a council now to do the work to inform the policy approach will mean that any changes are ready for implementation sooner? She has spoken about a stakeholder advisory group. In the light of what she has just said to Marie McNair, does she see that body as performing the same function?

I think that the cabinet secretary accepts that the current scheme is not fit for purpose—she called it “inherently unfair”. I am told that only 7 per cent of people who currently receive the benefit are women. I am not sure whether that is the exact figure, because it is difficult to get the information, but it is clear that the vast majority of people who receive the benefit are men and that that does not reflect who is being injured.

If the cabinet secretary accepts that the current scheme is not fit for purpose, does she also accept that we need to start the work on framing what a new benefit might look like as soon as possible, if we are to achieve a satisfactory benefit? Yet again, she will be responsible for a benefit that is not fit for purpose, as we have seen with other social security benefits.

The paper in which you reflect on your experiences is really helpful. You refer to Westminster’s

“less than glorious track record”

on social security benefits. It is fair to say that many of us have quite high expectations of what might be possible in Scotland. Indeed, in your paper, you talk about those

“high expectations bumping up against”

implicit and explicit constraints.

I am somebody who looks at outcomes. One of the surprises to me is, despite what the cabinet secretary said earlier, the frustration and experience of many claimants, who do not feel that the outcomes are much different from before. They still have to wait lengthy periods for benefits and, sometimes, those benefits are not granted.

There are two categories, I suppose. There is the creation of new benefits such as the Scottish child payment, and there is the migration of existing benefits. In relation to the latter, what are the lessons from our experiences so far about how we do that better—we do not want to just mirror what comes from down south—and how do we speed up the process to get to a better outcome? I know that a lot of that is about money, but perhaps we can put money to one side and focus on the aspects that are not about money.

Perhaps it is not helpful to get into the current benefits. To a large extent, you have simply mirrored what is happening down south, which many of us hoped would not be the position. Our hope was that we would be doing something better. However, let us not get into that discussion. Let us focus on whether the employment injuries benefit is fit for purpose

In its recent “Firestorm” report, the Fire Brigades Union Scotland found that 93 per cent of its members who participated in a survey believed that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not adequately resourced to deal with the increase in climate-related incidents such as wildfires. Does the minister accept that assessment? What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the fire service is properly equipped?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I am also pleased that there has been a great degree of cross-party agreement.

The minister highlighted the need for leadership across all parts of Government. I look forward to seeing the strategy that she said would be launched next week. Time is short today. I hope that the Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise that document.

Clearly, violence against women and girls is not just a Scottish issue. Understanding why it exists relates to the fundamental power relationships that continue to exist between men and women. As many members have said, attitudes need to change.

There have been many improvements in women’s position in society, and many women have won a significant degree of financial independence compared with women in previous generations.

Marie McNair and Pam Gosal spoke about the number of violent and sexual crimes against women in Scotland. That highlights that, although some things have changed, we still face significant challenges. Marie McNair also spoke about the historical tolerance of violence towards women. I think that most of us will have stories relating to that from previous generations.

Pauline McNeill spoke about the horrors of human trafficking now in Scotland and about the huge amount of work that needs to be done with boys, in schools in particular. Beatrice Wishart spoke about women’s dependence on social security, and Michelle Thomson spoke about the need for bold and ambitious changes as well as the rise in reported rapes. Many contributions have highlighted the range and scale of the challenge that we face.

Sharon Dowey spoke about the significant problems with violence against women staff in our schools and referred to this week’s NASUWT report that highlighted the rising levels of violence against women teachers in schools. We also know that there are significant increases in violence against other working women in schools, predominantly those in support roles, such as classroom assistants. There are also significant issues in other educational settings. Much work needs to be done in higher education and further education, although we have not focused on that much today.

However, today’s statement on the behaviour in Scottish schools research is timely. It is clear that we need a cross-campus strategy in schools to tackle sexism and misogyny and that the voices of girls, as well as those of women workers, need to be heard strongly when developing it.

Jim Fairlie and Pauline McNeill spoke about men’s responsibility. It is clear that changing male attitudes through our work with boys and young men has been central to today’s debate. That is vital if we are to achieve the societal change that we need.

A recent survey by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers showed that one in three women ScotRail staff said that they had been sexually harassed over the past year, but 80 per cent did not report those incidents. That highlights the challenges that we face on public transport and the need for it to be safe for women to use public transport. Trade unions have also campaigned on issues relating to safety at work in other areas—for example, Unite the union has campaigned for hospitality workers to be able to travel home safely.

In its briefing, Rape Crisis Scotland makes it clear that the six-month extension to the emergency funding that some Rape Crisis centres received during the pandemic—that funding has continued—prevented the jobs of 28 Rape Crisis workers from being lost. When I visited East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid recently, it said that its funding from the council had been frozen for many years. In effect, that means that, year on year, there have been real-terms cuts to front-line services for women who are being subjected to abuse. Given the cuts in council funding, that position is not unusual.

We face a significant range of challenges. We need to reflect on this year’s UN theme—“UNITE! Invest to prevent violence against women and girls”—to which Maggie Chapman referred, and on today’s motion, which highlights the vision of a Scotland where violence against women and girls has become a thing of the past.

I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour, which is pleased to support the motion. We want to work on a cross-party basis. It is very welcome that the Parliament is united on the issue and that we have been able to have the debate in the way that we have. I hope that, as a result, we can put together a serious strategy that makes violence against women and girls part of our past.

Ardrossan waited six years for the Scottish Government to agree terms with Peel Ports while ministers refused to agree to calls to bring the port back into public ownership to make progress. There is now real concern that Ardrossan will lose out to Troon permanently. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure urgent consideration of a business case for the essential works at Ardrossan harbour? Why has that work been left so late?

No. We can think about that issue later. That is helpful.

No. The composition of the council is a wide issue, but I fully understand the points that Linda is making.

My question is for Linda Somerville and is about the composition of the council. The STUC submission suggests that 50 per cent of the body should be trade union representatives. I appreciate that different unions operate in different sectors and will have knowledge of different occupations, but I ask Linda to explain why 50 per cent is the right level and say a bit more about what the overall composition of the body should be. We understand that the United Kingdom body is dominated by people from scientific and academic backgrounds.