Chamber and committees

[Made a request to intervene.]

The member will be aware that there was a five-year period in which the suspicions about the Horizon system were known. He will also be aware that no victims were contacted who had previously been prosecuted. Does the member agree that, given its actions, the Crown Office, which should have known through the Second Sight Investigations report that there were system flaws, should be fully accountable to this Parliament?

Labour is happy to support the amendment to the business motion.

Will the member take an intervention?

I agree with what Jackson Carlaw said about the importance of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in his excellent speech today, and I wish him well with his endeavours to enable young Callum to visit Bute house.

A miscarriage is one of the hardest things that a woman might ever have to go through, but it does not bear thinking about that that miscarriage could be caused by the violence of a partner. I, too, join others in welcoming to the public gallery Nicola Murray, the petitioner who brought the issue to the petitions committee and the Parliament. She is absolutely right when she says that the system fails victims and that it fails victims of domestic violence.

As we have discussed before across the parties, male violence is already a scar on society. It is even more shocking when men commit violence on pregnant women, and the law must be able to deal with those men. The pain and worry of protecting yourself as well as the child that you are carrying is unimaginable.

I, too, was surprised to learn that domestic violence often increases when a woman is pregnant or even begins at that time. That is true for women from all backgrounds, not just those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Pregnancy is an especially dangerous time for women who are in an abusive relationship. As we know, abuse is based on power and control, and it is common for an abusive partner to become resentful or jealous, resulting in further escalation of violence. A woman is more vulnerable when she is pregnant; the abuser knows that and uses it to gain more control.

The World Health Organization tells us that one in three women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Sometimes, pregnancy alters the pattern of assault, with pregnant women more likely to be struck on the abdomen or have multiple sites of injury. Women who experience domestic abuse when they are pregnant are much more likely to have babies born prematurely or with a low birth weight, both of which are leading causes of neonatal mortality.

Between 2017 and 2021, more than 7,000 domestic incidents in which the victims were identified as being pregnant were reported to Police Scotland; that equates to four women every day. However, that number is likely to be far lower than the reality; many pregnant women are scared to report abuse, because they worry that their child might end up being taken into care. In fact, it is estimated that fewer than one in five cases of domestic abuse are reported to the police, so we need more deterrence, and I agree with Pam Gosal on that point.

As well as the interventions that the national health service already provides for victims of domestic abuse, we need tough sentences for those abusers who cause miscarriage when a woman is pregnant.

Scottish Labour supported the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 as a key means of introducing tough sentences for those who are convicted of abusing their partners or ex-partners.

I want to address the question of the law, as the cabinet secretary also did. Scots law is different in nature to English and Welsh law. We have a common-law system for the courts to consider issues such as miscarriage or forced termination as a serious aggravation of domestic abuse when sentencing, and they can take into account harm to children. The question that we need to examine is whether the law is being used to its full effect.

I agree with others that the loss of a child caused by violence should be led as evidence in any court case. We need to be clear that it is a crime in itself, but the question is whether Scots law adequately covers it, or whether there is scope for further exploration if it does not. Jamie Greene made a point about the importance of the Sentencing Council addressing that in its guidance.

The petition proposes a specific offence with regard to an unborn victim of violence similar to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but England has a much more statutory and rigid system of law than Scotland. A specific offence, such as the crime of child destruction, would have to be proved separately from the original charge. It is not clear to me how successful that has been in England and Wales but, in legal terms, a clear causal link would need to be proved in those cases. Arguably, in Scots law, the burden of proof is lesser.

The petition raises a hugely important subject, which is that the loss of a wanted pregnancy is a unique and traumatic kind of harm to women, distinct from the injury suffered during an attack. The debate is an important opportunity to explore whether there are gaps in our law. As is clear, the petition has not been through a subject committee. Today is about examining the preliminary issues and deciding whether there is scope for the Parliament to do further work.

In my papers, it says:

“In 2022, males were twice as likely to have a drug misuse death as females. Most of the decrease in the past year was in males.”

I thought that you said that there was a changing pattern with regard to men and women.

That was helpful. I also note Kirsten Horsburgh’s comments about men being more likely to be homeless and all the factors that might lead them to be vulnerable to a drug death.

Good morning, minister. Could you expand on what you said about the human rights framework and say what you meant when you talked about parity of health esteem? I have some knowledge of alcohol addiction, and I would say that the issue goes beyond simply stigma, with the NHS, for example, not being keen to admit people who are desperate to get some help but who are still drinking—unless, of course, they have experienced something serious, such as a cardiac arrest. Is that what you meant by parity of health esteem, or did you mean something else?

I will follow up with a separate question. I raised an issue with the previous panel about some of the concerns that the public in Glasgow have about safer consumption rooms. I am sure you agree that it is really important that the community feels that the service is being run well. Could you comment on that? Do the proposals allow for those users who may want to make the transition to rehabilitation?

I was interested in the fact that,

“In 2022, males were twice as likely to have a drug misuse death”.

That was only two years ago. Dr Fletcher, I have to say that I did not fully understand what you were saying about the changing pattern over the past five years, given that in 2022 men were

“twice as likely to have a drug misuse death”.

I agree that it is an exciting and important step to take to see what contribution safer consumption rooms can make. As a Glasgow member, I am obviously familiar with where the pilot is going to take place. Has there been any feedback from the local community? It strikes me that it really has to have the support of the local community, because if they do not feel safe where that is located, that could be a setback. Can you tell the committee anything about what engagement there has been with the local community? One thing that I am aware of and has been fed back to me by the local councillor is that there is some concern, and they think that the location is not great for public transport.