Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for that explanation. I am pleased that any moneys that are released from such assets go to support essential public services. However, does the minister agree that often communities can be blighted by derelict and vacant land and assets that would fall to the KLTR? How can we ensure that communities might also benefit from such assets and their value in the future?

As we have heard in the debate, breastfed babies are getting the best possible start in life, and that is what we all strive for in Scotland. I am proud that the Scottish Government has supported and promoted breastfeeding to reduce inequality rates, while supporting the UNICEF UK baby friendly initiative across neonatal and community settings.

There is strong evidence that breastfeeding reduces children’s risk of gut, chest and ear infections and leads to a small but significant improvement in brain development, which Michael Marra has just highlighted. Breastfeeding also benefits mothers’ health, with strong evidence that it reduces the risk of breast and ovarian cancer and some evidence that it may promote a healthy weight and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. The benefits of breastfeeding for both baby and mother are seen across the world, including in Scotland.

Reducing stigma and outdated attitudes to breastfeeding in public is key. This is 2024, and women must feel comfortable feeding their babies whenever and wherever they need to. Indeed, it is a criminal offence to stop a woman breastfeeding in a public place—something that I feel is often forgotten. Since 2005, if a person deliberately prevents someone from or stops them feeding a child under the age of two in a public place in Scotland, they are committing a criminal offence.

Asking a mother to move or to leave the premises completely is also an offence. A child should be fed when required and in the most appropriate place for them, without the fear of interruption or criticism. Anyone who tries to stop a mother breastfeeding or to stop a mother or carer bottle feeding can be prosecuted and ordered to pay a fine if they are found guilty.

As the motion says,

“third sector and voluntary peer support remain pivotal to babies being breastfed in the first few weeks of life and beyond”—

preferably until six months of age. For a variety of reasons, support is often needed to help and encourage women to breastfeed, so it is important that help is always on hand for mothers and, in particular, for new mothers.

I stress—I am pleased that every speaker has stressed this—that women who are unable to breastfeed for whatever reason or who choose not to should not be pressured or guilt-shamed. As the minister said, women should be free to choose, depending on their circumstances, and they should never think that they are not doing the best for their baby if breastfeeding is not for them. There should be no stigma here, either. Childbirth is exhilarating and exhausting in equal measure. Some women struggle to breastfeed through no fault of their own, but they should always be supported to be comfortable with their feeding method.

Supportive employment policies that allow women to continue to breastfeed after returning to work are essential. The national breastfeeding friendly Scotland scheme marks a continuation of our commitment to a breastfeeding friendly Scotland for all and builds on the 2005 act. BFS is a national scheme that people can sign up to for free, and it is backed by the Scottish Government and run by local health boards.

The scheme aims to help businesses and people who breastfeed to know their rights and responsibilities and to raise awareness of the 2005 act and the Equality Act 2010. Employers should support mums to feel confident about breastfeeding on the premises. If a customer complains about a breastfeeding mum, the business will inform the customer that it is signed up to the breastfeeding friendly Scotland scheme and advise them about the legislation.

The UK Government discontinued the UK-wide infant feeding survey, which was carried out every five years from 1975 to 2010, but the Scottish Government commissioned its own national maternal nutrition and infant feeding survey in 2017. That provides continued insight into the common challenges that are faced and the areas that are most impacted by them. It is encouraging that the increases in breastfeeding over the past 10 years have been greatest among groups that have had low rates historically, such as young women and those who live in the most deprived areas.

The latest infant feeding statistics show a continued narrowing of the breastfeeding inequalities gap, and our targeted investment is based on the best evidence about what works. The family nurse partnership has had a crucial role in supporting breastfeeding by teenage parents, many of whom are in the lowest Scottish index of multiple deprivation areas.

To breastfeed successfully, mothers have to eat and to eat well. Food insecurity makes it harder to breastfeed; the cost of food is impacting how pregnant women and new mothers get what they need. The desperate cost of living situation is forcing families to make choices that no family should have to make, especially during the first 1,000 days that comprise pregnancy and the first two years of life, which are core to health and development. The Food Foundation’s data shows that 27 per cent of UK households with children who are under four experienced food insecurity in January 2023, which is higher than the rate for households with only school-age children or no children at all. That cannot continue.

There have been terrific contributions from across the chamber. The key messages are that, as my colleague Karen Adam said, fed is best, but choice must be supported for every mother, because we all want the best start in life for our children.

Do you think that the victims commissioner could incorporate that in his or her duties? They will not be able to intervene in individual cases, so it would seem to me that having oversight of what is actually happening would be a good role.

Hello, and thank you for being here. Before I ask my questions, I want to briefly follow up on what you have been talking about. I go back to your point, Hannah, about being listened to. If the message comes across from today’s meeting that being listened to is so key to your experience of the process, that will be brilliant.

On trauma-informed practice—you spoke about the one-size-fits-all approach—surely trauma-informed training should train people to understand that they cannot take that approach. People need to listen to that message, too.

I want to discuss the issue of specialist courts. Ellie, you explained very well the solemnity of High Court proceedings and how that reflected the seriousness of what happened to you. I completely understand that. The committee has had the same concern, but I will put to you what we have been told when we have asked about that. We have been told that it will not be a downgrading of the High Court process and that matters will be treated in the same way. The sentencing will be the same as it would be if the case was heard in the High Court. The upside is that the judge would be specially trained in trauma-informed practice in order to deal with your unique experience and the seriousness of the crime.

If you could be convinced—or rather, if you could be reassured that that would be the case, would you support the use of specialist courts for that reason?

Good morning. I want to pick up on a couple of the points that have been made about judge-only trials. Some of the women whom we heard from earlier said that they found the prospect of judge-only trials scary because they would not have confidence that that one person was not biased. However, I submit that there is more chance of a few people in a jury being biased than there is of that one specially trained judge being biased. The key point that must be remembered is that, in a specialist court, judges would have to have had all the necessary training and would have to understand the very sensitive nature of the issues.

That brings me on to my question, which relates to a point that one of the women made about the role of the victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland. They felt—and I agree—that members of the legal profession must be held to account in some way for their conduct. We can pass all the legislation in the world, but if members of the legal profession do not implement it, it is pointless. Could keeping an eye on how cases are conducted and how the legal profession implements trauma-informed practice be a key role for the victims commissioner?

That is something to think about. Does anyone else have a view on that?

Jennifer, you said that you were worried about possible delays and backlogs in a specialist court, but we have heard that that would not be the case. Last week, I asked the Lord Advocate about floating trials, and she said that she does not want them to remain and thinks that a specialist court might alleviate that. That all sounds quite encouraging, but I think that the message that we are getting from you is that it has to be done right and you need to be reassured that it is not going to make matters worse.

I will make another comment, which is about a plus side of judge-only trials. We have had powerful evidence about rape myths that exist among some jury members. Judges are trained to know about that and, although there is never 100 per cent certainty in anything, we have been told that the probability is that the rape myth element would not be there so much in a judge-only trial. We have heard stories from survivors where there was clearly huge bias because of some of the evidence that the defence had led.

I do not really have a question to ask you; I just wanted to tell you that that is what we are hearing. We are aware of your concerns about the issue, which is why it is important that you have told us about those today.

That is common sense, is it not?

I have one quick final question, on the specialist court. We heard some concerns about the perception of a downgrading of the seriousness of the offence. We all have that concern, and that is not what we want. It is about the perception.

One of the survivors came up with a simple suggestion regarding the name of the court, which I think would be effective: we could call it the specialist High Court. That is an easy fix. Do you agree with that idea? If we simply call it a specialist court, that suggests that it could specialise in anything.

Good afternoon. I listened to Teresa Medhurst’s response to my colleague John Swinney and to her remarks to Sharon Dowey. The policy seems to be much more specific—it focuses on there being a risk-based approach for everyone, not just for transgender prisoners, who currently make up 0.3 per cent of the prison population.

Does the policy apply throughout the prison estate? How much autonomy will governors have to bend the rules, if you like? Are they accountable to you if they do so?