Chamber and committees

Do you accept that the evidence so far suggests that establishing DCRs does not send out the wrong message? The evidence that I have seen shows that it does not tend to encourage further drug use.

I totally agree with you that there are questions about how the police would address the situation that you mentioned, but that could be dealt with. I suppose that the Lord Advocate—or, indeed, anyone else—would have to wrestle with a decision on what guidance would be issued in order to address that. I accept that it is complicated, but do you not agree that it could be done?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, minister, and thank you for appearing before us. I will press you further on safe drug consumption rooms. That is not because I do not agree with everything else that you say. I get the point that you make, but there are 66 cities throughout the world with consumption rooms and there have been no deaths at the sites that Gillian Mackay referred to. Moreover, 300 health professionals in England and Wales signed a letter after the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster called for the introduction of drug consumption rooms.

Are you aware that the Lord Advocate in Scotland, Dorothy Bain, has said on the record that, if she is asked to consider the question in the context of public health and rising deaths, she will deliver a decision about whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute people who use in safe consumption rooms? As you said, minister, there are complicated questions, but such questions can be answered in law. To me, it is clear that we can clarify that, in the example that you gave in Govan, in the public interest and in order to save lives, the law would not be applied in designated areas.

The easing of Covid restrictions is leaving immunocompromised patients facing an uncertain future. They may have needed to lock themselves—[Inaudible.]—agree that regular lateral flow testing is vital for everyone, but especially for that group so that they feel safe, and that free lateral flow tests are essential for that group? Will the First Minister say whether public health officials have estimated how long we might need regular testing?

The report on the first Glasgow School of Art fire in 2014 noted that the legacy ventilation system was a major contributor to the rapid spread of the fire. The report that was released this week on the 2018 fire notes that

“The construction, layout, and high fire loading allowed the fire to spread unchecked ... in all directions”,

leading to

“50% of the building being well alight within thirty-eight minutes

of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service arrival. The art school management has claimed that its approach to the protection of the building was gold standard, but we find that the fire alarm did not work.

Does the First Minister agree that lessons appear not to have been learned from the original fire, and that we owe it to the arts community and to the residents of Garnethill, who have been devastated by two fires and locked out of their homes for four months afterwards, that there should be third-party independent oversight of the management of the rebuild to ensure that confidence is restored?

I am happy to support what the convener and Russell Findlay have said, but we need to review whether we should keep any petition open for such a long time. I am content for the time being, but I wanted to point that out.

I do not think that it is necessary to write to the Scottish Government. There is a judicial process and we are being asked to wait and see whether the family decide to lodge an appeal, which they are legally entitled to do. We should leave it at that.

I thank my colleague Katy Clark for bringing this important debate to Parliament, and I commend the excellent speeches by Paul McLennan and Russell Findlay.

Domestic violence must remain at the top of Parliament’s agenda because, by its very nature, violence by men against women is committed behind closed doors. It has become more prevalent during the pandemic and, sadly, the figures are heading in the wrong direction.

The men who think that they will never be held accountable when they use physical or psychological violence must fear a robust criminal justice system. That is why specialist domestic abuse courts can play a significant role.

Male violence against women is endemic in our society. We have debated that many times. It is a global issue and it is on the rise globally.

If we are to have any chance of making serious inroads, as I have said many times, I believe that we need to start teaching our boys and girls from a young age what is and is not acceptable in relationships. I have discussed with the minister how cross-cutting programmes of justice, education and equalities that are being conducted are absolutely vital. I know that we agree on that.

There is talk of rape culture in schools and the sending of unsolicited photographs becoming commonplace. I read more about that every time I open a newspaper. The sexual violence that is inflicted on teenage girls is alarming—sadly, more so than it was a few years ago. That is something for Parliament to address. A recent report in The Sunday Post said that three out of five girls have endured some form of sexual harassment. We need a seismic shift in attitudes to reverse that trend, and we need to focus on what is happening in our schools and our education system.

I fully support the Government’s Equally Safe at School programme, which promotes healthy relationships, and I support the work of Rape Crisis Scotland. We need to hear how the programme can be rolled out across the country.

The pandemic has highlighted just how unsafe home is for many women. The United Nations declared it a “shadow pandemic”, as women across the world faced being stuck with their abusers, unable to get help or respite. Lockdown also cut off children’s access to safe spaces out of the home.

In 2020-21, the number of domestic abuse cases that were reported to the police was more than 65,000, which is a shocking statistic. When we consider that it is estimated that only one in 10 cases is reported, it gives us even more pause for thought. Specialist domestic abuse courts seem to be an appropriate way to address the magnitude of the problem of domestic violence. If we think that they are an appropriate solution, we need to ensure that they are rolled out.

Of course, domestic abuse does not only take the form of violence. Psychological abuse, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, can have a profound, damaging and long-lasting effect on an individual. It is a pattern of behaviour that is often not obvious at first, but it can do real damage. It has been a crime since 2019.

We also have to be alert to the fact that perpetrators often use social media and technology such as Apple AirTags to track their victims. Isabelle Younane from Scottish Women’s Aid said,

“Stalking and tech abuse are very real and dangerous forms of abuse—with survivors who are being stalked by their ex-partner often at risk of greatest harm.”

Given the scope that domestic abuse can take, we need specialist courts to provide the resources and expertise to deal with the issue.

I am glad to take part in the debate, although I am, obviously, sad to reflect on the figures. I know that there is, absolutely, energy behind the Government’s approach to the issue. The energy is cross-party; it is not a party issue. Sadly, it is an issue for society to deal with. It is a not problem only in Scotland, but we are leading the way. We can continue to do so by further adopting domestic abuse courts and using our specialist prosecutors and others who work in our courts to provide a solution and to make it clear to any man or woman who wants to abuse that we have a robust system in place.

Will the minister take the opportunity to comment on what the Scottish judiciary have said? They said that the consultation worked on the

“flawed premise that the legal profession ... regulates itself. This is incorrect.”

Moreover, the judiciary indicate that their previous attempts to raise the matter with the Scottish Government have been ignored. They go on to say that

“political regulation is simply not appropriate under any circumstances”

and, as has been said already, is

“a clear threat to the separation of powers”.

That the Roberton report does not seem to understand the whole premise of the current position on regulation in the first place is a serious accusation, especially as the judiciary raised the issue in 2019. I appreciate that the recommendations are those of the Roberton report, but surely the Government would want to address what seems to be a poor relationship. Will the Scottish Government consider that it is time to rerun that consultation?

Many businesses in Glasgow had no income or half of their income over the period of restrictions. Although they welcome the funding, they do not have it in their bank accounts and their situation is getting serious because they are getting ready to open. Could the cabinet secretary look at whether anything can be done about that? To be straight about it, they fear that councils are dragging their feet. I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that those businesses should have that money in their bank accounts as soon as possible.

City centres such as Glasgow have been hit harder economically than most UK cities, particularly in retail and hospitality. Between them, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports have lost 4,500 jobs as a result of the pandemic. In Glasgow, there are reports that passenger numbers are equivalent to what they were in 1973.

Does the First Minister agree that connectivity is vital for our economy? Can she tell me when she plans to engage with our airport industry to ensure that Scotland is not at a competitive disadvantage and we can start to see connectivity help our city economies to recover?