Chamber and committees

That is really helpful. Lynne, would you like to provide some input?

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate, and I thank Graham Simpson for bringing it to the chamber. His motion on free rail travel for blind and partially sighted people and companions really says it all: the cost of travelling on the train is prohibitive for blind or partially sighted people, because their essential companion has to pay.

I am fortunate to have the headquarters of the wonderful Deafblind Scotland in my constituency, and it raised that as the issue of most concern to it at one of our regular meetings. There is no national standard fare structure for communicators to accompany deafblind passengers on trains. I understand that travel is free on some routes but chargeable on others, as Graham Simpson outlined, which leads to geographical inequalities and confusion among rail staff.

The reality is that companions are even more essential on trains than they are on buses, where travel is—rightly—free for them. There are several factors that make that case. Of course, free travel is necessary on both forms of transport, but, when using trains, the gap between the platform and the train is of variable size, as is the height of the platform, and it is dangerous or impossible for a deafblind person or a partially sighted person to navigate that. In addition, stops can be missed, as the passenger cannot hear announcements or see the signage at stations. Also, these days, fewer and fewer stations have an on-site employee, so no help can be summoned, even in an emergency, which is obviously extremely concerning.

Added to those issues is the fact that the driver cannot help passengers. Indeed, they cannot even know whether someone is safely in their seat before they move off, in the same way that a bus driver can, by looking round.

I have no idea what the provision of the entitlement would cost. I know that the Government is financially extremely constrained at the moment, but I hope that a commitment can be made that that is something that we can deliver, if not immediately, then at some time in the near future. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to that. The fact that the service is currently delivered by way of a postcode lottery—or a rail-route lottery—suggests to me that it would be possible to expand provision throughout Scotland without major disruption or expense.

I do not believe that anyone who is not directly affected by the exclusion could possibly understand how it feels to know that they are, in effect, barred from travelling by train. Levelling out the service would make a world of difference to those who need it and, to be honest, we owe it to those people who are bravely dealing with their sight loss and many other struggles every day to do so.

I think that I speak for all the amazing staff, volunteers and service users of Deafblind Scotland when I say that the ability for those people to travel throughout our country in safety and comfort would literally open up a whole new world for them.

What steps are being taken to improve outcomes for care-experienced pupils, and how are stretch aims used to drive improvement for care-experienced children and young people?

I take a more straightforward view: I completely and utterly oppose the bill. There are two sides to it. There is the mission creep into our competencies and judicial system, which is quite blatant. The other side is the content of the bill. I really do not understand why the UK Government is trying to introduce this. I am not sure what its objective is. In relation to the commission, people say that it is good to investigate things, but if you look at the detail, you see that, even if it investigates, nothing can happen. There is a block on any access to justice for victims.

I cannot see any good in the bill. I realise that I might be outvoted, but I do not think that there is any purpose in delaying our decision. There should be a flat rejection of the bill. I am not sure of the worth of getting further information, because the bill, as it stands, is clear cut. I would oppose it completely right now.

I broadly agree with what Jamie Greene has said. The response to our letter was a wee bit defensive. It did not show much in the way of actual understanding of the issues that we presented, even in the case of the part in the notes about the employee assistance line. Somebody called it and was told to phone back later, but when he phoned back, he was told that they could not help him because he did not meet the specific criteria.

David Page described the trauma risk management model as a proactive model of support that officers and staff are expected to access by self-referral. We heard that that was not working, but he has not really addressed that in his responses. Those are just a couple of examples. We need to dig deeper. I agree with Jamie Greene: we need some recognition that there are problems and that we need to fix them. We have not really had that.

I am confident that those details will be provided soon. The fact that the commitment has been made is to be celebrated; it should not be talked down.

Scotland’s commitment in that regard is truly groundbreaking and is testament to 30 years of hard campaigning by the global south and civil society, which had, until now, been ignored by northern countries. It also shows how our nation always punches above its weight when it comes to taking responsibility. Ironically, and cruelly, the countries that are bearing the brunt of the worst consequences of climate damage are those that are least responsible for global warming, and we recognise that.

In Scotland, we are making great progress in areas of devolved responsibility, but urgent action from the UK Government is critical if we are to meet our ambitious climate change targets in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s motion calls for

“a coalition of action to be built ahead of COP28”.

I support that whole-heartedly. We cannot continue to wait year after year for pledges to be made and, often, broken.

Make no mistake: rich, developed countries have a moral obligation to support those experiencing the impacts of the climate crisis in the here and now. The total funding that Scotland has announced might seem like a small sum in relation to the overall scale of the loss and damage that developing countries face, but it sends an important message and shows just how important the actions of smaller Governments can be. There is, of course, a lot of detail to be worked out over the next year, but, from the inclusion of loss and damage on the agenda to the agreement to establish a fund, there has been a real breakthrough for vulnerable and developing countries.

The fact that COP27 was held in Egypt meant that there was a focus, rightly, on the human rights obligations of every country and that, in a similar vein to the world cup in Qatar right now, a light has been shone on the host country’s less-than-perfect record, which can only be a good thing.

Gender inequalities are exacerbated by the effects of climate change, so I am pleased that a co-design approach with women who experience climate-related harms, coupled with the funding, will seek to tackle the disproportionate impacts of climate change that are felt by women and girls. A package of measures relating to climate action to strengthen the role of women from the global south was announced at COP27 by the Scottish Government. That will ensure that more women from the global south can attend and influence crucial climate negotiations, including next year’s COP28 in Dubai, and it will give female human rights defenders from the global south the opportunity to spend several months in Scotland, where they can continue their work in a place of safety.

A few months ago, I watched a BBC documentary called “Big Oil v the World”. I highly recommend it to anyone who has not watched it and who cares about our planet—I think that it is still available on catch-up. However, I give a warning: it will make them angry. It made me very angry as I watched in disbelief as it showed how, for the past 50 years—half a century—oil company bosses ignored scientists and dismissed claims of the damage being done to the planet, all in the name of vested interests and greed. What legacy have we left our young people and future generations? During school visits, climate change is the number 1 topic, and I am ashamed that my generation has let young people down and caused them that concern.

As part of the Scottish Government’s work to widen access to climate negotiations, young people from countries that already face the worst impacts of climate change were given the opportunity to attend COP27 in Egypt. It is vital that countries recommit to doing everything that they can to keep 1.5 alive and to build a coalition ahead of COP28 that protects and drives progress against any further push-back.

Scotland believes that all levels of government, particularly in areas in which responsibilities are devolved, have a central part to play in delivering the transformative action that is needed to halt biodiversity loss in the coming decades. The Edinburgh declaration is Scotland’s call to state parties to hear the voices of more than 280 signatories at COP15 in Montreal. We need them to take stronger actions and make bolder decisions in the next decade.

Scotland, as a country, is at the forefront of renewable energy and a just transition away from oil and gas. That transition is exemplified by Scotland’s offshore wind industry, with ScotWind representing the world’s largest commercial round for floating offshore wind.

We can and we must do so much more if we are to save our planet for future generations, and I am confident that Scotland will do that.

We are in the middle of a global climate emergency—of that there is no doubt—and countries throughout the world understand and agree that there is a need for radical action to save the planet from further damage. However, we are playing catch-up after decades of neglect and denial on all fronts.

After the promises made and optimism shown by most countries at COP26 in Glasgow last year, there is a palpable sense of disappointment that COP27 in Egypt was unable to build on that progress and that the 1.5°C target was in danger of ebbing away until it was contested.

However, despite the disappointment and major concern about the lack of progress, unlike Graham Simpson, I am proud that Scotland has agreed to establish a fund for loss and damage to smaller countries that are bearing the brunt of the devastating effects of climate change. Scotland is the first developed country to make such a financial contribution and commitment.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have been speaking in debates on the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence since 2016—that is six years of highlighting with other members the destructive and vile impact that gender-based violence has in society not only here, in Scotland, but globally.

This year, the theme calls for us to recognise the role that men must play in challenging and eradicating this scourge—and I could not agree more. Tackling gender-based violence should not be left to women, because we are not the problem. Men must call out vile behaviour at every level, whenever and wherever it happens. They must not turn a blind eye to their peers, family or friends when misogyny and discrimination are perpetrated, because those things violate women, diminish society and demean men. I know that not all men participate in them, but, sadly, a significant number do.

That is why Police Scotland’s “That guy” campaign is a positive move to shift the wider cultural problem and is a huge move in the right direction. Campaigns and debates like this one will not change things overnight. Generations of women suffering misogyny, discrimination and violence is like a stubborn stain that requires constant reworking and a massive amount of effort to remove—but that is possible.

As the co-convener of the cross-party group on violence against women and children, I recognise that gender inequality cannot be separated from other forms of inequality. Primary prevention should address all forms of inequality, and that prevention must start with educating and engaging with boys and young men. That engagement can be difficult, but it can be done.

As Rape Crisis said:

“Children and young people cannot be expected to change cultural norms by themselves”.

So, we need to see robust and bold leadership from adult men from all walks of society. Men must be the adults in the room and speak out against sexual violence and misogyny. I wish that we did not have to have this debate every year, because every year we highlight terrible statistics on murders, stalking, domestic abuse and disfigurement. Afghan girls are being sold to pay for food to fight famine, and sexual war crimes are currently being committed in Ukraine. All of that is beyond sickening, but everyday disrespect, name calling discrimination and unconscious bias are all sickening examples, too.

Baroness Helena Kennedy KC’s excellent report “Misogyny—A Human Rights Issue” lays it bare. When Baroness Kennedy gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee earlier this year, she said:

“We were shocked ... I say that as somebody who is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool criminal lawyer who thought that she had heard it all ... every single woman or group that appeared in front of us said that something has to be done.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 27 April 2022; c 1-2.]

Something is being done. The Scottish Government has committed to acting on the working group’s recommendations by creating a new offence of misogyny. In fact, Scotland punches above its weight with its excellent third sector organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis, Engender, Zero Tolerance, Close the Gap, White Ribbon—which engages with men and boys—and many more, which protect and support women every day. We led the way in creating a zero-tolerance position to domestic abuse by creating the world’s first domestic abuse offence that explicitly recognises coercive and controlling behaviours, which are as abusive as physical violence. We also continue to implement and fund the delivering equally safe strategy to prevent and eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls, but there is always a need to do more, and we will continue to expand our efforts to combat this scourge.

There is one area in which neither the Scottish Government nor the excellent organisations that I have just named can help, and that relates to migrant women in the country. United Kingdom immigration law dictates that migrant women fleeing abuse who are destitute or on very low incomes are not entitled to Government benefits. How mentally damaging is it to migrant women, who are often with their children, to be trapped with an abuser? The UK law on that must change or immigration powers must be devolved to Scotland, so that we can change that obscene system and help every woman in the country.

The theme of Scottish Women’s Aid’s 16 days campaign this year is around the desperate impact that the cost of living crisis is having on women who are trapped by abuse. The cost of leaving can be fatal, and Scottish Women’s Aid is holding an online vigil tomorrow to remember all women and children who have died because of domestic abuse. Further details about that are on its website.

We must all make a conscious and collective effort to challenge racism, homophobia, transphobia and classism, and we must strive to promote social and economic justice. That can start in our own constituencies and regions. We are privileged to have a public platform on which to do that, and we must promote and normalise gender equality in everything that we do.

We must stand together—men and women—for all the women and girls throughout the world who have lost their lives through gender-based violence or who have been abused, degraded and traumatised. It is time to turn the tide on violence against women here and now.

I thank the member for taking the intervention. I struggle to see how what you are talking about fits with the topic of this debate on the 16 days of activism? That is a global initiative, but you have chosen to narrow it down to this issue and to politicise it.