Chamber and committees

Twechar, in my constituency, has been without a GP surgery since 2019. The ever-growing village is in a semi-rural area on the border between East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire. The only option for residents is to register in the one practice in Kilsyth or in one of the two practices in Kirkintilloch, which are both some miles away.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that residents deserve a better service than that and that the HSCPs and health boards in the two local authority areas should work together to find an acceptable solution?

As we approach the 10-year anniversary of Police Scotland, it is important to recognise its achievements since 2013, but it is equally important to consider what the next steps of reform are. Does the cabinet secretary agree that utilising evolving digital technologies, such as the digital evidence sharing capability—DESC—service in Dundee, could make a big difference to police officer workloads, in particular?

This is a momentous day for at least 60,000 mothers who were forced to give up their child, not least Marion McMillan and the other brave campaigners who have spent their lives fighting that heartbreaking injustice. Does the First Minister agree that that dark period in our history should never be forgotten and should inspire progressive policies, to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again?

I do not believe so. I think that very high risk-assessment standards will be kept. I will discuss the issue of section 23D of the 1995 act later in my speech, but my answer to the question is that I do not think so.

On the discussion on data and why remand levels are so high, I think that Professor Fergus McNeill and His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, were correct when they said that the lack of data makes it incredibly difficult to analyse and draw conclusions on that. I think that we are all in agreement with that.

Section 1 calls for input from justice social work in relation to pre-trial bail decisions. The circumstances surrounding each person being considered for release are always different, and every decision should be taken with the maximum amount of information being made available to assist it.

Howard League Scotland said in evidence that, in too many cases, particularly those involving women, people are remanded due to a lack of criminal justice social work reports. As convener of the cross-party group on women, families and justice, I find that very concerning. Earlier this month, I led a members’ business debate to highlight the excellent report from Families Outside, “Paying the Price: The Cost to Families of Imprisonment and Release”, which illustrates just how much imprisonment wrecks families and affects children. I agree with David Mackie of the Howard League when he says that there is merit in the bill making specific reference to the rights of children. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that in closing.

Section 2 makes changes to prisoner release arrangements and provision of support on throughcare. My colleagues have outlined those already, so I will not repeat them.

I will focus the rest of my contribution on section 3, which would repeal section 23D of the 1995 act and so remove existing restrictions on granting bail in solemn procedures to allow the courts to apply the tests used in other cases. The evidence that we heard from the majority of witnesses and almost all the legal professionals was in favour of the removal of those restrictions. However, Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland have concerns about the implications for domestic abuse offenders, and I do, too.

Due to the unique nature of domestic abuse and gender-based violence, perpetrators continue to present some degree of risk to women, children and young people for long periods following their involvement in the criminal justice system, which must be taken into account when determining their suitability for release. That is a matter of individual risk, not public safety risk, and should be dealt with as such. Given women’s experiences of their abusers being given bail, women need as much protection as the law can afford them.

Victim Support Scotland believes that the restriction currently contained in section 23D was inserted to emphasise the seriousness of the risks associated with cases involving violence against women and girls. Although the committee heard assurances from witnesses that the removal of section 23D would not mean more risk to women, I hope that the cabinet secretary will address how important it is that women are reassured that the bill will not impact them. Women must have confidence that the justice system will protect them.

In a similar vein, and because of the—perhaps unlikely—possibility that the emergency release of prisoners might become necessary for some reason, I believe that the restrictions in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 regarding domestic abusers should remain in place, and I intend to speak to the Scottish Government about lodging an amendment in that regard.

The bill is clearly a complex one and not without issues. Katy Clark described the bill as a missed opportunity. I would suggest that it would be a missed opportunity if Labour did not agree to the general principles of a bill that will change the culture of imprisonment and remand, as we desperately need to do.

I urge members to support the general principles of the bill, despite the differences on detail that can be worked out at later stages. We must change the culture of remand and custody in our justice system, and prison must always be a last resort.

Around 7,300 people are imprisoned in Scotland every year. Scotland’s incarceration rate per 100,000 of population is 135, compared with 66 in the Netherlands. We have one of the highest rates of remand compared with other countries in the UK or the European Union, so it is clear that we are locking up and remanding too many people, as everyone in the chamber agreed about 18 months ago, and it is essential that new practice happens if our justice system is to progress.

As we have heard, the bill has not been straightforward and I, too, thank the many witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. I also thank the clerks, the bill team and SPICe for their customary excellent support and advice.

Remand must be a last resort, and a much greater focus on prevention, reintegration and rehabilitation is the way forward, which is why I fully support the aims of the bill.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to introduce free rail travel for companions of deafblind people. (S6O-01985)

Deafblind Scotland’s headquarters are in my constituency, and free rail travel for companions is the most concerning issue that it raised with me. The cost for blind or partially sighted people to travel by train is prohibitive because their essential companion has to pay. I understand that it is free on some routes, but at present there is no national standard fare structure for communicators. Does the minister agree that ending geographical inequalities would benefit users and rail staff?

This is the third and final debate to mark international women’s day this week and we have heard some excellent and moving speeches in each of the debates from members across the chamber. Misogyny is endemic in our culture and it is only by tackling it through legislation, discussion and education that we have a hope of eradicating it for future generations of women and girls.

I come from a generation of women who grew up with rampant misogyny in the workplace. In truth, like many working women in the 70s and through the following decades, I just thought, “Oh, well. I guess that’s how men behave.” If people have not already seen it, I recommend that they watch the BBC’s excellent three-part series, “The Women Who Changed Modern Scotland” for typical examples of what things were like at that time. Misogyny was normalised, so we must do everything that we can to call it out today.

It is depressing that, half a century on, women and girls are still subjected to that denigration. The barriers for countless women to their progressing or flourishing in horrible restrictive workplace environments, and as they went about their daily lives, can never be underestimated. Shockingly, women and girls are still harassed, humiliated, groped, undermined, trolled online and offline and subjected to comments and abuse about their looks. That absolutely beggars belief.

Misogyny is a global curse. We know that women and girls throughout the world, including in Afghanistan, Iran and many other countries, are being denied education, exploited and trafficked. It is heartbreaking and is a complete abuse of their human rights.

Anyone who says that it is not possible to legislate for equality or a better society is wrong. The Scottish Government has enacted groundbreaking legislation, including the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which included coercion for the first time. It has introduced free period products and has extended childcare and many other policies that will help women.

That is why this debate is so important and necessary. As we have heard, the proposals that are out for consultation are based on the recommendations that have been made by the working group on misogyny that was led by Baroness Helena Kennedy, which

“concluded that the harmful effects of misogyny meant that women and girls required new protection through criminal law.”

Under the proposals, the scope of current laws that tackle misogynistic abuse would be expanded to include threatening, abusive or sexual behaviour that is directed towards women and girls because of their gender, and which is likely to cause them to feel degradation, humiliation or distress.

We have heard the five new proposed criminal laws, but they are worth repeating. They are: an offence of misogynistic harassment; an offence of misogynistic behaviour; a statutory aggravation concerning misogyny; an offence of threatening or abusive communication to women or girls that references rape, sexual assault or disfigurement; and an offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls.

As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, my colleagues and I had the privilege of attending a private briefing with Baroness Kennedy, which was as enlightening as it was shocking. The working group took evidence from large numbers of women who detailed horrific misogynistic incidents—some blatant and some far more insidious, but all of them totally unacceptable. The report reflects the scale of the problem of misogyny and the fact that nearly every woman has, at some time in their lives, if not daily, been subjected to it. I congratulate Baroness Kennedy and all those who worked on producing the excellent report.

As others have said, the law can go only so far to deliver a policy of eradicating misogyny and violence against women and girls. It is only by changing misogynistic attitudes and culture that Scotland can become a place where women and girls can seek to fulfil their full potential. Engender’s chief executive, Emma Ritch, was a titan of the feminist movement in Scotland. Emma was a powerhouse, which is why I was delighted to hear the First Minister announce the forthcoming opening of the Emma Ritch law clinic in Glasgow. What a legacy she has left for future generations.

I will highlight two examples—there are many—of women currently being treated disgracefully. First, the women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women. They are women of my generation who effectively had their pensions stolen without notice by the United Kingdom Government. Those women bear the brunt of disrespect and, I suggest, misogyny by being forced to endure a delay of six years before they could access their pensions. I applaud the campaigners who are still striving to get justice on that issue.

Secondly, there are the refugee women who have already been traumatised and are fleeing domestic abuse in Scotland but have no recourse to public funds. Surely, the UK Government can do better than to consign them, and often their children, to a life of destitution by offering no support. That is inhumane and it must end now.

Women’s and girls’ experience of violence and abuse crosses private and public spaces, and are a cause and a consequence of women’s inequality, which has been recognised by the Scottish Government’s on-going equally safe strategy. I commend Police Scotland’s “Don’t be that guy” campaign, which is headed by Detective Chief Superintendent Sam Faulds and was created to effect a change in men’s misogynistic behaviour. Only if men lead the culture change will women be free from misogynistic behaviour and violence. That must begin early, in schools and in family conversations with our sons, brothers and nephews.

We know that marginalised women are more likely to experience bias, discrimination, harm, continuing prejudice and the structural barriers that cause inequality in society. Lesbian, bisexual and transgender women and girls often experience violence and abuse that targets their sexual orientation, gender identity or both. There is no place in modern Scotland for homophobia, biphobia or transphobia. We must continue working towards equality for all and end misogyny.

I totally appreciate that. It is good to hear, because the legislation has to be right—you cannot embark on using it if there are certain issues that have not been ruled out. The benefit for the victim would be that they would not have to go down the civil route, and they could avoid the expense and stress of having to do that. If the issues can be worked out, that would be excellent.

Does anyone else on the panel have a view on that? Mr Naylor, do you want to come in?

Personally, I think that using the legislation will be a game changer if it can be done effectively, and if all parties are able to do it without a great deal of hassle.

Moira Price, do you have a view on that?