Chamber and committees

That vulnerability also applies to female patients in mixed-sex hospitals—

How many rapes of women and girls in Scottish hospitals are acceptable to the Government?

The human rights of women and girls in Scotland are not complex. Sex-based risk is real. Women and girls have unique vulnerabilities to sexual violence, including in institutional settings such as hospitals, but also in prisons, toilets and changing rooms.

Protections that are recognised in law should not be optional. The tribunal’s judgment in the case of the Darlington nurses was clear that failure to provide single-sex changing rooms violated their dignity—

The latest Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service figures show a 43 per cent post-Covid rise in under-16s who are reported for rape and sexual assault. There is a crisis of violence against women and girls in Scotland. What we are currently doing is not working. Will the Government please do something different and start with what the Lord Advocate has described as root-cause offending: the violence against women of prostitution? Prostitution dehumanises women and girls, and that human rights abuse is currently state sanctioned. Will the Government take this opportunity to stand up for women and girls, protect them and support my unbuyable bill?

I look forward to seeing the details of that additional funding.

Current funding is very fragmented and it does not align with Scotland’s international human rights obligations, the Government’s stated aim to eradicate male violence against women or the Government’s and COSLA’s equally safe strategy, which recognises prostitution as a form of violence. The costs relating to violence against people in prostitution are continuing to escalate, and a tiny fraction of that money could be used instead as a proactive investment to deliver preventative, trauma-informed support and exit services.

Will the Scottish Government finally meet its obligations to reduce the sex trade market through criminalising sex buyers? Will it properly fund the support and exit recovery services that exploited women and children across Scotland need?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider allocating ring-fenced funding to local authorities in the 2026-27 budget to ensure consistent provision of prostitution support and exit services across Scotland, in line with the joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities equally safe commitment to tackling commercial sexual exploitation. (S6O-05365)

I confirm to the member that I did not send a complaint to the Ethical Standards Commissioner and that both the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the Presiding Officer—I believe—read my letters as an attempt to seek guidance. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the member.

I believe that, as members of this Parliament, we should not fear communicating freely with the public on important matters—matters that they think are important—about what is going on in here. The motion before members this evening is not just about sanctions for a social media post; it is about whether we are consistently upholding accountability and maintaining public trust in this institution.

I move amendment S6M-20269.1, to leave out from “to impose” to end and insert:

“that no further action should be taken.”

Over these past decades, public trust in this Parliament has declined significantly, and that is every member’s joint responsibility. Confidence in this institution is now at its lowest point since devolution began, dropping 20 points in just 10 years. I think that Scots expect their Parliament to act to their values and in their interests. Today, many people are, unfortunately, questioning whether we still do that. Transparency is central to building and sustaining trust, and more than 90 per cent of Scots value openness in public decision making. Honesty, clarity and accountability are values that should guide how we all operate.

I sought and gratefully received advice from the Presiding Officer and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in response to overwhelming concern from the public, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, where there was widespread condemnation of an attack on the judiciary from a member of this Parliament with a privileged position of deputy convener. That committee has human rights and civil justice responsibilities, which—I believe—compounded the gravity of the incendiary public comments accusing the Supreme Court of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”.

What followed was widely regarded as farcical, with the member allowed to dial in to vote to save herself from a motion to remove her that had been lodged by a committee member, Tess White. Meanwhile, the Ethical Standards Commissioner pursued a complaint about me making a complaint that the commissioner never actually received, as I never made the complaint.

Upholding our duty to defend the judiciary, however, is specified in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which obligates us, as members of the Parliament, to do so. Other members who similarly publicised their grave concerns have received no proposed sanctions.

My legal advice, from Roddy Dunlop KC, highlights both the commissioner’s misrepresentation of human rights legislation and a confused interpretation of the code. The logic—which the convener has repeated here today—appears to be that publicising anything that is loosely interpreted as an intention to complain would impact a potential ESC investigation, despite such an investigation clearly never commencing because there was no ethical standards complaint in order to trigger one.

After six sessions of this Parliament, there remains no convener code for committees that I or other members could have used, despite unanimous agreement on the critical importance of committees to an effective legislature. I also make Parliament aware that this is not the first complaint against me to the Ethical Standards Commissioner since I launched the consultation on my unbuyable bill. The process has been on-going for more than seven months and concludes with a proposed sanction just as I prepare for a critical stage 1 debate and vote, which were supposed to take place next week.

Advancing a bill of that nature against the roots of male violence against women has been extraordinarily challenging, despite the issue supposedly being a priority in this Parliament for women and girls across Scotland and those around the world who are trafficked here and groomed and coerced in our own towns and cities.

Despite the barriers that I have faced, which have included having no non-Government bills unit resource such as other members have enjoyed for their members’ bills, I am working to make—I hope—meaningful legislative change that the Parliament and the country can be proud of.

Holyrood was designed at the outset to be more transparent, more participatory and more accountable than Westminster, and every single member in here has a duty to protect those principles and not to undermine them.

If I will get the time back, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its equally safe delivery plan, what discussions the Minister for Equalities has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the provision of sustained social and economic investment in prevention, housing, safety and long-term recovery for women and children currently in, or who are survivors of, the commercial sexual exploitation of prostitution. (S6O-05321)