We are tight for time and, as you say, we could spend a whole session on this issue. Mr McMillan made the point about somebody being locked away for 50 years. That is not good enough and the money could be spent elsewhere. I will not continue that discussion, but the committee is focusing on it.

In response to Lorne Berkley, I note that we are looking at autism. The focus of the committee is on patients who cannot get autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments and on waiting times in child and adolescent mental health services. You are all in agreement that those are huge areas that need to be looked at.

I will go on to my second question. Access to affordable food is a huge issue, and nobody seems to have grasped the ears of that elephant in the room. Ms Mulvagh, you mentioned access to good-quality affordable food. I have a few facts.

Sixty per cent of the food that is consumed on this island is produced on this island, and that has not changed for about 100 years. That is a fact. Another fact is that the majority of people do not achieve the dietary requirements set by the Government, so the quality of food is going down dramatically. Charlie McMillan talked about his 86-year-old father. When we were growing up, we all got used to quality food that was locally sourced, but now the direction of travel is taking us somewhere completely different. If we were to take a holistic human rights-based approach, we should do rural proofing of our food supply to ensure that it is sustainable and affordable. I know that Professor O’Hagan mentioned that theme when we talked about rural proofing of health. However, instead, we have this drive to industrialise our landscape with huge monster pylons and substations. It looks as though our energy strategy and planning are geared towards one thing, and the danger with that direction of travel is that we will not be able to source our food locally or have quality food.

Professor O’Hagan, what are your views on the potential for a human rights-based national food strategy in Scotland, bearing in mind the context of that holistic landscape?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This bears no relation to the topical question in hand.

The cabinet secretary talked about that meeting. We all know the truth behind that meeting. Last week, the First Minister stood up in this chamber and said that he would respect the rule of law and abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. This morning, Scottish National Party MSPs voted to keep Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee after she shockingly attacked the highest court in the land following the verdict.

Maggie Chapman has shown contempt for the rule of law and has brought the committee into disrepute, when it should be scrutinising the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the SNP’s decision to keep her in post on the committee risks undermining trust in Holyrood itself—yes or no?

The EHRC’s update was crystal clear, and there is a vacuum right now. Biological males should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities in workplaces or public buildings such as schools or hospitals. That is compulsory. It is the law, as the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC have clearly laid out, yet John Swinney said yesterday that public bodies should wait for the “legal certainty” of full EHRC guidance in June before implementing new policies.

The Scottish Government is dragging its feet. Will it now finally stop kicking the can down the road and remove biological men from women’s spaces across the public sector—yes or no?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the interim update from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on the practical implications of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. (S6T-02484)

It is agreed unanimously. Thank you.

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak. It is important that I support this very important petition. Unwanted sexual choking and non-fatal strangulation in cases of domestic abuse is pervasive among women, particularly women under the age of 40. I would like the committee to note the incredible work that Fiona and Germain Drouet are doing, through their charity EmilyTest, to stop violence against women in educational institutions. Fiona Drouet is here today, at the committee, to stress the importance of this. The committee knows how important the matter is and that she is tracking the petition very closely.

Non-fatal strangulation must be a stand-alone offence. Historically, aggravators have not been applied consistently, and, without the creation of that offence, nothing is likely to change despite any attempts that might be made to educate. Having a legislative add-on would actually minimise the severity and the seriousness of this particular crime, not only for victims and survivors, but for perpetrators. The cabinet secretary references the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill as a potential legislative vehicle. However, thus far, the Scottish Government has made no commitment to amend the bill in accordance with the petition.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of Fiona Drouet in thanking the committee for taking the matter seriously, for having this discussion a month after the last discussion of the petition and for recommending—as you have just said, convener—that the petition be referred to the Criminal Justice Committee, which I think is the right place for it.

It is absolutely clear to the committee that we must tackle this pernicious problem before more lives are irreparably damaged and lost. The lives and safety of young women and girls depend on it, so I thank the committee for recommending that the Criminal Justice Committee take evidence and progress the petition.

Scotland’s public bodies are, by definition, an extension of the Scottish Government. Last week, the Supreme Court exposed the Scottish Government’s fallacy, but the SNP’s reckless ideology has become embedded, like Japanese knotweed, in our public institutions.

While this smacks of asking an arsonist to extinguish the fire, will the cabinet secretary secure written assurances from all the Government’s public bodies that they will put in place policies complying with the Supreme Court ruling within three months of her meeting with the EHRC?

I, too, thank Douglas Lumsden for securing time for this important debate on NHS Grampian.

Healthcare in the north-east is in crisis as a result of years of chronic underfunding of NHS Grampian by the SNP Government. The health board is financially crippled. The situation is so desperate that it has had to take out a £67.5 million loan from the Scottish Government, bringing the total debt that it owes to £92.2 million. There are huge questions about how that debt will be serviced, given that the health board is already trying to make eye-watering savings. It is almost impossible—how can it pay a debt when it cannot make ends meet?

The reality is that NHS Grampian has been short-changed by more than £260 million—a quarter of a billion pounds—since the SNP got into power. The SNP Government’s parity formula is not worth the paper that it is written on.

That underfunding has resulted in the erosion of community hospitals, closed in-patient facilities and the end of night-time minor injuries units. It also means that NHS Grampian has the lowest bed base in Scotland.

All that has created substantial pressures on hospitals, GPs and the Scottish Ambulance Service, with crews queuing for hours just to get in the door of Aberdeen royal infirmary—a symptom of a system that is stretched beyond its limits.

That is why a critical incident was declared at ARI last November, when patients were diverted from the hospital because the capacity simply was not there. On that day, a dedicated ambulance crew saved the lives of a couple. The crew decided that, if they went to NHS Grampian, the couple probably would not have had their lives saved. The ambulance was diverted—it was blue-lighted all the way through to Dundee and NHS Tayside, double or triple the distance.

Upwards of 3,000 patients in the NHS Grampian area have been languishing on waiting lists for more than two years. The health board’s cancer waiting times are the worst in Scotland, with more than 40 per cent of patients waiting longer than two months to receive their first treatment after being referred. That means lives not just put on hold but put at risk, because we know the pivotal importance of early intervention. It is a ticking time bomb.

Despite the brilliant efforts of NHS staff, NHS Grampian received red ratings for nearly two thirds of its key targets between October and December 2024.

I rarely agree with Kevin Stewart, but, as my colleagues have said, he was spot on when he rightly pointed out that the national treatment centre for Grampian is on ice. The Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR projects have been beset by problems, delays and design issues. What is the SNP Government’s response? To carry out a patchwork of short-term fixes and make empty promises. It is no wonder that Audit Scotland has highlighted the lack of a strategic vision, and that NHS workers are sounding the alarm.

The SNP has failed the north-east. It has failed our NHS. Today, Neil Gray must apologise for the harsh financial conditions that his Government have created for NHS Grampian. My constituents, and the constituents of other MSPs who are speaking on their behalf, deserve better than this.

Monica Lennon talked about the importance of air, land and water quality. Does she agree that it is difficult to see how we can plan, and start to implement, an infrastructure or a project without a proper, thorough and independent environmental impact assessment?