Chamber and committees

Trade unions, local government, professional associations, care providers in all sectors, carers and front-line workers are calling for a pause to legislation, but they are also concerned that the legislation will not meet the aspirations of the Feeley review into social care. Therefore, can the minister explain why he has failed to introduce the key recommendations of the Feeley report, such as ending non-residential care charges—which was, incidentally, a Scottish National Party manifesto pledge—and say when he will listen to the serious concerns of those stakeholders?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this vitally important debate as we mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I intend to focus my comments on the role that men must play in challenging and eradicating violence against women and girls.

I am proud that, today, my colleague Pauline McNeill launched our party’s consultation paper on ending violence against women and girls. I commend that work, and the work of people in our party such as Pauline McNeill over many years on these issues, to ensure that we can tackle such pernicious and serious issues. Indeed, this week, I heard these issues labelled by the Queen Consort, no less, as a “pandemic” of “heinous crimes” that exists not only in our country but around the world. I think that we would all recognise that, in her contribution to the 16 days of activism, she highlights something that we really need to focus on tackling.

Over the years, women have shown bravery, courage and strength in calling out the horrific abuses of power and acts of sexual exploitation and violence that have been carried out by men who believed that their income and status would protect them from being challenged, called out or held accountable for their behaviour. We should take a moment to thank those brave women and to remember all those who have been killed as a result of violence against women and girls, the names of whom we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the chamber today.

I make it clear that the primary burden of challenging dangerous, toxic and violent behaviour by men should be on men. Men have to take responsibility to change their behaviour. We must be part of the solution, because misogynistic attitudes remain deep-rooted in the foundations of our society. Those attitudes reveal themselves in small, subtle actions, or they present in a more overt and aggressive manner, through derogatory comments on women’s appearance and sexist humour, including sickening rape jokes. We know that, in this day and age, that exists online in a way that it never did in generations past. Pauline McNeill’s contribution in that regard, and the amendment that Scottish Labour has lodged, are crucial in enabling us to begin to deal with what happens in those online spaces.

In recent years, there have been particularly disturbing increases in the number of incidents of women having their drinks spiked in our bars and clubs.

Men must challenge their male relatives and male friends and must call out behaviour towards women that is problematic when they see or hear it—for example, when they hear an inappropriate joke about a woman’s appearance.

The role that men play in this space is vitally important, which is why I support White Ribbon Scotland and the fantastic work that it does in getting men to challenge violence against women and, we hope, to begin the process of eradication of violence against women. I first encountered White Ribbon when I was a local councillor, and I pay tribute to local authorities across Scotland, which play a vital role in the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. As other members have said, they play a particularly important role in encouraging our schools, colleges and universities to educate people—especially young men—on the role that they must play.

A variety of activity is taking place across our local authorities in the 16 days. For example, my colleague in Inverclyde, Councillor Francesca Brennan, is running a Reclaim the Streets glow up walk in Greenock on 6 December. She is encouraging younger women and girls, in particular, to take part in that and to stand up against the violence that is too often experienced on our streets.

We need to focus on shifting attitudes and changing cultures. Peer-to-peer action is crucial in shifting the dial and dismantling toxic masculinity. Men must challenge one another to be the best version of themselves by calling out and challenging damaging, dangerous and corrosive attitudes against women.

I want to touch on the specific issue that exists in sport because of the public platform and adulation that accompany success for many men in the sporting arena. Athletes, footballers and ice hockey players can be heralded as idols and viewed by their younger supporters as role models whom they look up to and would seek to emulate. That raises the crucial issue of how sexual misconduct is addressed in sport. It is clearly an important barrier that impedes the participation in sport of many women and girls.

I am glad that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is keen to look at that area and, in particular, at the barriers that exist in sport, and I hope that we will be able to take a more focused look at how allegations of sexual misconduct are handled.

This year, there have been high-profile cases involving professional sports clubs in Scotland. In football, Raith Rovers and, in ice hockey, the Glasgow Clan have rightly faced significant criticism for signing men who have been guilty of rape and sexual assault. That led to a backlash against those signings, which forced the clubs to reverse their decisions. In the case of Raith Rovers, club directors and staff resigned and, ultimately, the women’s team cut its ties with Raith Rovers and was established as McDermid Ladies, in homage to the wonderful Val McDermid, who did so much to lead that campaign and to call out the club for its handling of the situation.

We will never achieve a systemic rebalancing of sports participation if we are not all willing to work to challenge the toxic attitudes and atmospheres that persist in our stadiums and clubs across the country. Government and sports regulators need to play a more proactive role in ensuring that sport is a safe environment for women and girls. There are many options that we could explore, such as manager training and education sessions that are focused on identifying misconduct and signposting people to appropriate means to report such misconduct.

I reiterate that the responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls lies with men. It is for men to take responsibility for their own actions and to be better. I urge all men to speak up, to challenge other men to do the same and to be the best version of themselves and a strong ally in tackling violence against women and girls.

Nick, do you recognise that many of the things that you have just said are, at their heart, Derek Feeley’s recommendations?

I want to push you on your feelings about the distance between the Feeley review and the current bill. Is the bill focusing too much on structure and not enough on culture?

Do you feel, though, that people become fatigued by structural change? I think that it is fair to say that, in this sector particularly, we have seen various structural changes over many years, and actually what people are driving at is cultural change. Integration, on which we are not quite at the 10-year mark, would be an example of that. What are your thoughts?

I will try to draw some of this together and think about the broad theme of how we will measure the success or otherwise of the bill. There has been a lot of discussion this morning, and with other witnesses, of Derek Feeley’s review and of how to achieve what was set out in that review. How will we assess and measure the success of the national care service bill, and will the current level of detail in the bill be sufficient to allow us to judge whether it has achieved its aims? I will start with Peter McCormick, and then Margaret McCarthy, Fanchea Kelly and Nick Price might want to come in.

Rachel, CCPS submission’s says:

“The Scottish Government appears to have taken the view that aspects of the detailed implementation of the Bill should be subject to codesign but that the overall approach to system redesign and structural reform should not.”

Do you think that that is back to front in some ways and that there should have been co-design in advance of the bill to inform what it looks like? How would you respond to those who have called for a pause on the bill to try to get it right?

In the Randolph Hill submission, you spoke about being concerned about an absence of criteria to judge success or failure. Do you recognise that there is not enough detail in the bill to measure success against?

I am interested in any of the other witnesses’ comments on the broad question about measuring success.

I want to follow on from that by pulling some of the threads together and going back to first principles with the Feeley review, which Rachel Cackett mentioned in a previous answer. Can the bill achieve what everyone agreed with regard to the review’s aims, or is there too much focus now on structure as opposed to the investment in social care that we have just talked about? I appreciate that that is a broad question, but I ask Rachel Cackett and then Karen Hedge to comment.