Chamber and committees

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour in the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. We welcome that the subject of the debate is men’s role in and responsibility for violence against women and girls. As Christina McKelvie rightly said, that is the key to reversing the horrendous picture of violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls, and sexual harassment of them.

In my speech, I want to address in detail Labour’s amendment on the inclusion of cybercrime and the role of social media. In closing, Pam Duncan-Glancy will address some of the wider points. I hope that ministers will understand that we were keen to support the Government’s position, but we lodged our amendment so that cybercrime could be debated specifically.

We are committed to working with the Scottish Government. Last week, we launched our own consultation paper called “How to change the future for women & girls”. We want to be part of the conversation.

In 2020, 31 years after inventing the worldwide web, Tim Berners-Lee declared:

“The web is not working for girls and women.”

By “not working”, he really means that wider smart technology is part of the problem. That is because gender-based cyberviolence—in the form of sexual harassment, trolling, messages threatening rape and murder, or the leaking of private pictures and videos without consent—has become rampant in our society. Arguably, digital technology has changed the shape and nature of violence against women and girls in the 21st century.

As many members have said in previous debates in this Parliament, there is a burgeoning rape culture in schools across the UK. Teenagers are experiencing sexual harassment on a huge scale. The Sunday Post found that three out of five girls have endured some form of sexual harassment. I am sure that we agree that boys need to be taught not to put pressure on girls and girls need to be empowered to say no.

I feel that, far from making progress, in some ways we might actually be losing the battle.

I recognise the issue, and I agree that we should investigate it in a deeper way and think about how we can restrict such activity.

In the social media age, the use of Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok can cause serious harm in many ways, as we have seen. We must seek to understand exactly what is going on and the origin of the problem of male violence against girls, and we must support young men in our schools to change their behaviour—if not, nothing will change.

In a report last year, academics from several universities highlighted that the sending and receiving of unsolicited—I emphasise “unsolicited”—sexual images is becoming “dangerously normalised”. The team found that more than half the boys and girls who received unwanted sexual content online or had their image shared without their consent did nothing about it.

Girls are pressured to trade intimate images with boys who send unsolicited pictures. Inevitably, they are mocked or bullied when their photographs are shared among classmates.

We know that children and young people are more susceptible to peer pressure, cyberbullying and sexting, all of which are activities that involve digital communication. That makes navigating the online social world treacherous at times.

Teachers have warned of a self-styled wealth guru who is accused of spreading misogyny on social media. I will not name the person, but members who have been following the issue will know who I am talking about. He is promoting seriously harmful content online. In one video, he describes how he would punish a woman who accused him of being unfaithful:

“bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck.”

I apologise for the shocking language, but that is out there on social media.

The man is followed by literally millions of, I presume, boys and girls—certainly males. He is not a fringe personality lurking in an obscure corner of the dark web; the videos that he has put out have had 11.6 billion views.

As Christina McKelvie rightly said, most men do not hold violent, misogynistic views about women. We need more men to speak up. If they do not do so, we will not reverse the problem.

We commend Police Scotland’s “Don’t be that guy” campaign, which encourages men to call out the sexist and misogynistic behaviour of their male peers, friends, family members and work colleagues. That is the only way to change things.

We want to build on that important work by tackling sexism and misogyny in schools. As I have said many times, I support the equally safe programme—I would like to know a wee bit more about it—and I would like it to be rolled out in more schools.

We need to realise that boys and men who need to change their behaviour might not seek out that kind of information. We might need to seek them out, if we are to get them to change their views.

Women and girls in Scotland cannot face the problem alone. Scottish Labour says that it is down to men to change their behaviour and down to policy makers to lead the way in changing our society, online and offline.

Now is the time to put in place long-overdue protections for women and girls from cyberviolence. Now is the time to educate boys and men on the seriousness of perpetuating violence against women and girls online. Everyday sexism is part of the problem and we need to tackle it at every level. It is about not just tackling domestic abuse, rape, street harassment and all crimes against women and girls across the world but developing a radical strategy to tackle sexism and misogynistic attitudes. I look forward to reform of the justice system that makes a difference by creating new crimes to do with misogyny, as part of this Parliament’s work on the matter.

I move amendment S6M-07002.1, to insert, after “such violence”:

“understands that concerted efforts are required to enhance the criminal justice response to cybercrimes that specifically target women and girls, and to ensure that women can access justice when they do become victims of cyberviolence, such as ‘cyberflashing’, revenge porn and threats of rape, as well as encourage the collection of data on cyberviolence;”.

I have a supplementary question on prison budgets. I previously put this question to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service. You will know that, just by dint of the contract, the two private sector prisons are protected against inflation, which no one ever thought would reach double figures.

I put it to the chief executive of the SPS that she perhaps needs to have a discussion with the private sector prisons about sharing some of the pain. Have you thought about that? The issue might not be significant enough, but it seems unfair that two private prisons are protected financially when public sector prisons are not.

I did not know that this issue was going to be raised, but it has been. Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that, at the moment, effectively, no one can say anything about the case because it is a live issue, so I will not press you on that.

However, Russell Findlay is right about accountability. A Lord Advocate took a decision some years ago that has massively impacted on the credibility of the Crown Office, not to mention the huge sums of money that are involved. When everything has been settled, what scope do you have as cabinet secretary to satisfy yourself that there will be accountability? I hope that you agree that, at least, somebody has to hold the Crown Office to account for that decision. A former Lord Advocate took that decision, and I do not think that that can be allowed just to dwindle out once the court case is finished. Surely, that cannot be allowed to happen again.

My question is on the police budget.

Therefore, the inquiry will hold the Crown Office to account over those decisions.

You said “if”, but I want to be clear. Is there going to be an inquiry?

During the passage of the Covid legislation, I raised a question about what I thought were pretty dreadful remote working circumstances in the sheriff courts, because the sound quality was so poor. I am delighted that the Government acted on that such that that approach will now be only for restricted purposes and not for full custody hearings. However, is that something that you are able to address—yes or no? I do not have an issue with things being done remotely, but there is no point in that if the quality of the connection is so poor that it undermines the whole idea of it. I have an issue with that.

[Inaudible.]—the IT, then?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have said to Jamie Greene twice that you have no intention of presiding over a drop of 4,500 officers. I am pleased to hear that.

I want to drill down a bit on the discussions that you are having with the Deputy First Minister about the issue. I am sure that you have shared the same concerns that the committee and I have. Police Scotland’s submission said—and the chief constable has said this openly—that it is not only the drop in numbers that is a big concern. As we have discussed many times, the Scottish police service is special in the UK and internationally because of the type of policing that we have here. It is not only the 101 service that is special. Perhaps only 26 or 28 per cent of calls are crime related. The police are very much the line of last resort. You know that, and you have heard that in many exchanges that we have had.

What discussions are you having in the Cabinet and with the Deputy First Minister about how we can avoid that drop in officer numbers? It seems to me that, even if you could find money in the budget, given the period ahead, it is important to protect and preserve that model of policing for the future. Are you getting that across to the Deputy First Minister? We are not talking about just a straight flat cut and a cut in numbers; we could lose that model of policing for ever because, when things are changed, they do not come back to where they were.