Chamber and committees

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. Like colleagues across the chamber, I welcome the publication of the annual statement, which finally delivers on the recommendation that Scottish ministers deliver an annual statement on gender policy coherence. As we have heard, that was first suggested by the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls in 2019. It has taken the time since then for the annual statement to be brought to fruition. I appreciate that we have had challenges in the intervening period—not least Covid—but we should reflect on the amount of time that it sometimes takes to prepare reports and then decide how we will implement the actions. Members across the chamber have reflected on the fact that having reports is all well and good but that taking action is really important.

Whatever the internal processes and challenges have been in collating the information that was needed to deliver an annual statement, there is now an opportunity for us all to take cognisance of it, reflect on it and decide how to move forward in relation to both the Government’s actions and the actions that Parliament can take through scrutiny. This debate will be important in that regard, but it is important that we come together annually to reflect on what progress is and is not being made.

There are similar opportunities in the parliamentary calendar to reflect on and debate issues that are relevant to supporting women and girls in Scottish society. Every year, we have many important opportunities for debate, such as on the annual 16 days of activism on gender-based violence. I have reflected, as have colleagues, that those debates cannot just take place at that time, or during those 16 days in the case of that example. We need year-round scrutiny and interrogation to ensure that we do not miss those important issues in the day-to-day work of the Parliament.

The point has been made already, but I agree that it is crucial that men—those who are in the chamber and other male colleagues in the Parliament—are involved in that scrutiny. It is always the case that too few men take part in these debates. I always try to say that it is very important that we reflect on our actions and behaviours. We must also reflect on how we are bringing up a new generation of boys and young men and informing their attitudes towards and understanding of women. We must reflect on whether we are giving them the right support to be the best men that they can be and to respect and understand what is acceptable behaviour towards women and girls. Many of those issues have already been explored very eloquently in the debate.

We need to take robust action to push back on toxic influences, toxic figures online and the drip-feeding of outdated and harmful views towards women, which has arguably set back our debates quite some way. We have to push harder to look at potential new ways to target those narratives, particularly online. I pay tribute to everyone, particularly the women in the chamber, who continue to work collaboratively to do that and to raise those issues and ensure that they do not disappear from our discourse.

I will reflect on the work that is being done in committees in the Parliament, which is very important. A lot of good, high-quality work can be done in committees, not least in the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—some members of the committee are in the chamber for the debate—but also the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which is concluding its report on the impact of finances on women who are leaving a domestically abusive relationship. Its forthcoming report will be important, because the evidence that we heard in the committee’s inquiry was stark and concerning. A lot of tangible action could make a real difference in how we support women to leave a financially abusive relationship, to get the right support and, fundamentally, to get on to the right footing and have the right financial support to move on with their lives.

There is a huge amount of work for us all to do, but I am particularly cognisant of the role that men play in understanding the issues, moving forward and supporting the women in the chamber and beyond in Scotland so that we can all move forward together for equality.

I have, like other colleagues who have raised this issue, seen these kinds of incidents in my region. As the cabinet secretary knows, we had a recent incident of damage and vandalism at the united services club in Barrhead. The last social club in the town, it is run by older volunteers, and the incident was very distressing for them.

I heard what the minister said, but the Government has now had a number of summits. We need to know when the funding will come to support local authorities, community organisations and, crucially, the police in taking a focused and holistic view of the issue and to enable us to get the solutions that we need for communities.

Good morning. I think that it is fair to say that there have been mixed views on the second national BSL plan. For example, many users have said that it lacks focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. It would be useful to hear your broad views on the second national BSL plan and how it assists with the development of local plans.

That is why I asked the question. The evidence that we heard was from people who use BSL. The contention was that the users of the language must be at the heart of the process. It is useful to hear that the cabinet secretary is open to that suggestion. I am sure that the committee will want to reflect on that as part of its work.

I will hand back to the convener. I hope that those questions were substantive enough.

I think that it is fair to say that, in the evidence that we have heard so far, the views on the second BSL national plan have been mixed. We heard commentary not only on some of its positives but on people’s concerns, particularly the lack of focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. We also heard criticism that the plan was watered down, despite the evidence that was given during its preparation. Will the Deputy First Minister respond to those criticisms that the draft version was watered down?

We heard some useful evidence on that point last week, from people with lived experience. It is useful to hear that reinforced in the evidence today.

There are two points in what you have just said. One is that you do not recognise that the draft plan have been watered down; however, you do recognise that such criticism has been made of it.

Rachel O’Neill from Moray house school of sport and education at the University of Edinburgh was consulted on the plan, and her research with Dr Rob Wilks of University of the West of England in Bristol was incorporated into the draft version. Their view was that recommendations had been watered down or removed, and they were disappointed with that. It would be useful for the committee to understand why that decision was taken in the final draft and why people feel that things have been watered down.

On your last point on progress being measured in tangible outcomes, a lot of the criticism is to do with there not being measurable things in the plan. There is not a sense that we will measure targets. I appreciate that you are saying today that that will be the case, but is it your view that there should be measurable outcomes?

What was your involvement in the preparation of the national plan? What influence do you feel that you had?

We have heard evidence from various quarters that it feels as if the national plan has been watered down and does not have the impetus that people desired in the consultation. Do you recognise that view?

That is useful, because there is concern about a lack of central oversight of all of that. In our session with the previous panel, we had a discussion about the lack of a formal oversight body. I appreciate what the Deputy First Minister has said about the legislative constraints in that regard, and I do not want to pit BSL against Gaelic, because I am supportive of the Gaelic language, too—which we will have a wide-ranging discussion about in the chamber this afternoon—but, earlier this morning, we were told that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has a very clear role and that it often acts as the central oversight organisation. The fact that we do not have a similar body for BSL was a matter of concern for the witnesses who gave that evidence.

The Deputy First Minister has said that she is open to having a conversation about that or to a potential recommendation, but I wonder whether she might like to reflect on that comparison.