Chamber and committees

Today’s debate has been an opportunity to discuss one of the most serious human rights violations: violence against women and girls. It has also been an opportunity to highlight the strong cross-party consensus that exists—not on every part of the issue, of course, but there is consensus on the fundamentals.

I thank members from all parties for their contributions. I also thank and pay tribute to the front-line service workers who work tirelessly to ensure that women and children can access vital help, advice and support during these times. Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the ASSIST—advocacy, support, safety, information and services together—project, Victim Support Scotland and many others who support victims of gender-based violence demonstrated incredible resilience and adaptability at the height of the pandemic. I thank them for all that they do.

We are here to discuss a different type of pandemic—a number of members have called it a “shadow pandemic”—in our society: men’s violence. I listened carefully to last week’s debate on violence against women, which was led by Shona Robison, and I echo all the sentiments that she and other colleagues expressed. This is a men’s issue, and it is men’s responsibility to change.

For my part, I am prepared to do everything in my power as justice secretary to ensure that all forms of men’s violence against women and girls are eradicated from our society and that women’s humans rights are upheld throughout our justice system. It is past time for men to look closely at their behaviours and challenge those of their peers. That point was very well captured by Police Scotland in its “Don’t be that guy” campaign. I commend its powerful message.

I will quickly address some of the points that have been raised. Jamie Greene was right to mention that there is broad-based support across the Parliament for many of the measures that we might take. Although we might differ on certain particulars, there is a great deal of support for many of the measures that could be considered.

There needs to be a general cultural change. We could make all the changes that different parties want, but we will not change the fundamentals of men’s violence against women and girls until we make such violence culturally unacceptable in society.

The issue of veterans has not been mentioned. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, I am well aware of the experience of women in the armed forces. I recently opened a veterans facility in Fife, where there was a woman who used to serve on ships; she was one of the first women to go there from the Women’s Royal Naval Service. She had an absolutely horrendous experience. I think that we will see more coming out about that, and about the treatment of LGBTI people in the armed forces. We must look at the treatment of women in the armed forces.

Difficult reforms will need to be made, many of which we are looking at. I do not think that we will get agreement on the presumption against short sentences. The last case that Russell Findlay mentioned was dealt with under the previous legislation, which the current Scottish Government changed. Although the early release of the individual in question took place under the current Government, the previous legislation applied at the time. There are issues on which we will probably disagree.

Pauline McNeill raised a point about legal aid. The Minister for Community Safety is carrying out a review of legal aid, and I am sure that she heard the points that were made, which will be addressed.

Liam McArthur acknowledged that progress had been made. He also mentioned issues such as anonymity, in relation to which we will take action.

Audrey Nicoll and Maggie Chapman mentioned the backlog of cases, which is a huge issue, and Maggie Chapman asked what we can do about it. I am not making a political point, but we have no Covid consequentials to deal with anything related to justice in the settlement from Westminster. Our challenge is to find the money to continue the work that we have done on, for example, remote juries, or to continue with some of the innovations that we have adopted with regard to recording evidence. I reiterate that we are more than willing to listen to other suggestions.

It might have been Kaukab Stewart who said that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed is also justice degraded. Over time, people forget the evidence. We must ensure that we limit any backlog.

I say to Tess White, who made a very good speech, that we have never drip fed anything from the misogyny working group, at least not as far as I am aware—I am happy to be challenged on that. We have regular conversations with Baroness Kennedy. The Parliament agreed that she would report back by February, and the minister confirmed that we expect that she will do that.

The backlog and the other issues must be dealt with. In a spirit of trying to find consensus, we will accept the Tory amendment, even though there are things in it that cause us concern.

I cannot accept the Labour amendment, for the reason that I sought to draw out in my intervention on Katy Clark, which relates to the constitutional position. We have been here before. I said that the matter of the introduction of domestic abuse courts was one for the Lord Advocate; it is actually the Lord President who has the power to direct the courts. However, we agree with much of what the Labour amendment says, and much of what Labour members have said, and I hope that we can continue to work together on taking these things forward.

Victim blaming, misogyny and patriarchal commentary have no place in a modern, progressive Scotland. It is men’s behaviours that need to be held up to scrutiny. I have said this a number of times, but it bears repeating: harassment, unwanted physical and verbal attention, threats, invading women’s space and many other actions that men routinely inflict on women must stop.

We all grew up at a certain time. If I am honest, it is only in the past few years that I have realised the extent to which women have had to change their behaviour and it has been made more obvious to me that women such as my daughter, my mother and my sisters would have changed their behaviour from the point when they were small girls. Men must change their behaviour to start to unravel that, and education is an integral part of that.

I will do if I have time.

As I said in response to Russell Findlay, an SSI is being laid in Parliament today, which will amend prison rules to allow prison officers and employees to

“copy and, for the purposes of investigating whether it contains a prohibited article or unauthorised property, test”

that correspondence. My hope is that the rules will come into force on 13 December, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

As the member hints, it would have been wholly wrong to have had such a review without involving the families. I have already mentioned the family advisory group, which met monthly for the duration of the review. It was made up of 12 people from eight families and informed the work of the review throughout the process by providing lived experience. The helpline team from Families Outside also collated inquiries from families regarding concerns for someone in prison.

Judith Robertson, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, was appointed co-chair of the review. I reassure the member that we will ensure that the involvement of families continues as we take forward the report’s recommendations.

The Scottish statutory instrument was laid in Parliament today. As the member will be aware, it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but we hope that it will come into effect on 13 December.

I cannot immediately think of any reason why the body should not have those powers. Unless a compelling reason why the new body should not have those powers comes up in the discussions with other partners, I cannot think why we would want to fetter the new body, which is independent for a reason.

The member will see that other recommendations refer to data and information being provided more readily, for example to families. Why, then, would we not provide that information to the independent body? It would seem wrong not to do so. As I say, we will have to have those discussions with our partners. We will come back to the Parliament and the Parliament will have a say on that.

Pauline McNeill’s other points are really important—they are issues that can sometimes be lost. People need to be informed of someone’s death and spoken to in a way that shows understanding of the impact of that death. I do not blame the prison service; across the justice system, people are doing their job and they do not necessarily see it as central to that job to take the trauma-informed approach that we must embed right across the system. They are doing their job, but it is important now that we say that there is more to it than that. When we are dealing with people who have lost somebody through death in custody, we have to make sure that they get the right information—and as much information as possible—that they are spoken to in an understanding way about the loss that they have experienced and, crucially, that they get answers quickly.

I cannot say for certain that there would not be a case that, for some reason, took longer than a year, but if the standard is to be a matter of months—not necessarily 10 or 11 months—that would be much better for the families. The report makes a serious attempt to address some of those fundamental concerns.

As I mentioned, the holding of a fatal incident inquiry is not within the gift of the Scottish Government. An FAI is conducted by the Lord Advocate. The member is right to raise the fact that staff will require support, which the report also recognises. He says that we have to do more in relation to that issue, which I accept.

I mentioned the impact on other prisoners of a death in custody, and we have to acknowledge that there is an impact on staff as well. The member’s point is well taken. The report tries to address that issue and the challenge for us is to take it forward and deal with it as effectively as we can.

Last year, we published our response to the veterans strategy, which set out our commitments through to 2028 to improve service delivery and support. We report progress against those commitments through our annual update to Parliament, which I delivered last week.

Furthermore, Scotland was the first country in the United Kingdom to establish an independent veterans commissioner, whose recommendations continue to assist—and occasionally challenge—our work, and ensure that wider policies are developed with the views of the veterans sector represented. I continue to explore additional measures that might be appropriate to provide further reassurance to veterans on those important concerns.

I associate myself with Karen Adam’s remarks about her grandfather, about those who have previously served and about the need for us to continue to remember them.

Through our affordable housing supply program, funding continues to be available to build homes that are specifically for veterans. I say “veterans” because responsibility for housing for people in the armed forces rests, as a reserved function, with the UK Government, although we will look to work with it.

When local authorities identify the housing issue as a strategic priority, we will work with them in relation to veterans. We are aware of the current shortages of materials and labour that parts of the construction sector face, and we continue to be advised of developments in that regard, as well as of impacts on the affordable housing supply programme. We are working closely with the construction sector, through the construction leadership forum, to understand and address the factors behind the issue.

The member says that he presumes that something is in the consultation: he obviously does not know. He should read those things before he comes to ask questions.

It is the case that discretion will remain with the courts. That is how we do things in this country. Independent courts decide on those things. It is also true that remand is at a very high level in Scotland. The member is right to be concerned about the backlog of cases, which is not peculiar to this jurisdiction and is due to the pandemic.

He made a point about automatic early release. It was the Conservatives who brought in automatic early release but then voted against it the last time that this Parliament voted on it. I do not know where the Tories are on justice. I do not think they have a clue what is meant by “soft justice”. We want smart, effective justice that ensures that the right people are in prison and that people are given the rehabilitation opportunities that they should have, so that we can continue to drive down the levels of recidivism, as we are successfully doing.