Chamber and committees

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that spending on IIDB will be £84 million this year, falling to £81 million in 2027-28. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the budget saving there is, in essence, because people are dying? People are not able to make a claim and they are dying. Does she recognise that that is a serious issue?

I will continue from where Katy Clark left off.

The committee has heard significant criticisms of IIDB. For example, Ian Tasker told the committee that it is

“no longer fit for purpose”.

Given those criticisms, is it still an option to introduce EIA largely unreformed? Does the cabinet secretary recognise the criticisms of IIDB and does she view it as acceptable to introduce a benefit in that state?

I was pleased to lead the members’ business debate on the dying in the margins report, which Ruth Maguire referenced. Last week, there was the publication of the state of caring report for 2023, which shows that there are gaps. People who are in receipt of certain income replacement benefits cannot access carers allowance supplement because they are not in receipt of carers allowance. Has the Government done any assessment of the number of carers in Scotland, particularly those who support someone with a terminal illness, who might be falling through the cracks in the system and of the impact that that is having on them?

I am pleased to follow Ben Macpherson in the debate. I will start where he left off, by saying that it is important to note, from the outset, that although we mark 16 days of activism, our activism against gender-based violence must take place every day and every year.

We have heard a number of rich speeches in the debate; I hope that I will continue in that vein. I pay tribute to colleagues in the chamber who have campaigned tirelessly over many years and have worked deeply on such issues. In particular, I pay tribute to members on my party’s front bench, Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark, for their work on the matter and on the Scottish Labour Party’s consultation and subsequent report about how we tackle and end violence against women and girls, which was published at the party’s women’s conference this weekend. The report lays bare some of the challenges that are faced by women and girls and sets out some of the ways in which we can go about addressing the issues. Once again, I thank them and everyone who contributed to that work for all their efforts.

Like many of my male colleagues who have spoken this afternoon, I am clear in my mind that the burden of ending violence against women and girls cannot fall only on women and girls. Women and girls campaign actively and work tirelessly to raise the issues and often have to call out the perpetrators of the violence against themselves and share their own stories. It is important that we show them respect, stand in solidarity with them and offer them our support, but we must also be absolutely clear about the role that men must play in taking action to tackle violence against women and girls.

When I read the report that was prepared by Scottish Labour, a quote stood out for me as being critical. A respondent said:

“It is men who are missing in conversations focusing on tackling”

violence against women and

“it is men who need the courage to call out bad behaviour when they see male peers engaging in it.”

As men, we must be responsible for our actions and for ensuring that we do not engage in or perpetrate behaviour that normalises gender-based violence. Men must be responsible for calling out their friends and colleagues and they must be active bystanders when they see other men engaging in misogyny and violent behaviour.

What all the numbers that we are hearing today and all the crime figures and reporting demonstrate to me is that we must get much more serious about educating young boys about misogyny and gender-based violence, and we must do it much earlier. We need to ensure that schools have the resources and confidence to tackle such behaviour wherever it manifests, to educate both children and staff, and to ensure that female staff and students feel safe enough to report and challenge such behaviour.

I have been proud and pleased throughout my career in a council and in Parliament to support organisations such as White Ribbon Scotland. I commend White Ribbon on the work that it does to ensure that the root causes of violence against women and girls—namely, harmful and dominant misogyny—are effectively challenged. We need to change long-established attitudes and behaviours, and to take a preventative approach in order to stop violence against women and girls from occurring in the first place, rather than trying to deal with its consequences.

I close this speech where I began. I remind people that taking action on violence against women and girls does not end at the close of the 16 days of activism—it has to be an on-going effort. It has to be us, as men, who examine our own behaviours, listen to the experience of women and girls, and challenge the actions of the men around us. Only with that level of effort will we change the experiences of women and girls.

Obviously, the bill will be amended, we believe—

Sure.

Good morning to your lordships. The convener began her questions by asking about the area that I am interested in. Last week, I had an exchange with Roddy Dunlop, who attended on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates, on the issue of an independent regulator. Mr Dunlop’s contention was that the discussion is academic, because an independent regulator is not in the scope of the bill. The challenge for the committee will be to take a broader view on whether the Government may wish to consider that at some point in the future, given the Roberton review.

Will you expand on Lord Ericht’s points regarding your concerns about independent regulation? We have already heard quite a bit about that, but you could talk about any future moves towards the Roberton report’s recommendations.

Finally, I will turn to the known unknown—to borrow a phrase—about the amendments. I presume that the Lord President has made certain views known about what the amendments might contain. From the Lord President’s point of view, what has engagement been like with the Government thus far?

Lord Ericht, correct me if I am wrong, but I think that you said that we are some way off from having substantive amendments. Do we have any sense of the timescale from the Government? We have been frustrated in trying to get that detail.

Yes.