Chamber and committees

You have made them, and I am challenging you.

Good morning, minister—it is nice to see you, and thanks for coming in. It is always good when one of our colleagues tells the minister what we are going to ask. [Interruption.] The good news is that I am not going to ask about data now—although my beliefs on data, especially healthcare data, are well known: we are very good at collecting data but not particularly good at deploying it, especially across sectors. We need to get better at that and we could get better at that.

I want to follow up the extremely important issue that Murdo Fraser raised, which we could probably spend the whole time talking about. During Covid, access to healthcare was restricted, which had a significant impact on elective surgery for chronic pain and on access to mental health services. It is reasonable to extrapolate from that that the economic inactivity rate would move in an upward direction. At a certain level, if a person’s pain is not treated, it becomes chronic pain, so more people must have moved in that direction.

I am always interested in the cross-portfolio impact of decisions. I go back to the reprioritisation of £65 million in primary care funding and £38 million in mental health funding. The minister said that, for every £1 that is spent, you get £5 back. Surely that indicates a false economy—taking money from one side of the ledger affects the other side of the ledger. Given the return on such investment, would it be prudent for the Government to revisit the position?

It is interesting that the minister mentioned that mental health issues cost our businesses £2 billion; I have read that the cost is more like £4 billion-plus to the economy. How do we strike a balance?

I will use the fact that the minister brought up data. We collect good data; if we do not deploy it in a way that gives you the answers that you need, we need to invest more in it—we could get into that big time. Should we focus first on how we deploy the data to give us better and more accurate responses?

We could discuss that issue all day, minister, but I had better finish off my questions. We know that Scotland is the unhealthiest nation in Europe, so I am slightly concerned that you think that things will get worse. We know that economic inactivity follows ill health, and there is no doubt that Covid has significantly exacerbated that. Surely, if we focus on health—and education, for that matter—we will positively impact the employment and activity rates in Scotland. That is why I said that it is time that we look to undertake more cross-portfolio working rather than working in silos, which is what are doing just now.

One thing that I want to touch on, which is one of the most important things that we have spoken about today, is the impact that employers can have on the health and wellbeing of staff.

Given that we have a real problem with mental health, would it not be prudent for the Government to start pushing an initiative that encourages occupational health and the promotion of health and wellbeing within businesses? It could take a significant burden off statutory services if we could get employers to recognise that correlation between the £5 they get back and the £1 that is spent on mental health. Could the Government focus and bear down on that?

Thank you, convener—I am happy to have the opportunity to speak once again on this issue. At the outset, I note that the former Education and Skills Committee produced an in-depth and comprehensive report—I do not know whether members have seen it—as the bill that became the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 progressed through Parliament in the previous session of Parliament. I recommend reading that report.

Sexual abuse, and specifically child sexual abuse, has been swept under the carpet for too long, and victims have been left without the support that they desperately need. As several colleagues will be aware, I have been working on the issue with constituents for a number of years. I think that it is fair to say that my understanding of the trauma that they have suffered over a prolonged period, as they seek justice and redress, and my discomfort and disquiet at the way in which victims are retraumatised and left open to suffering secondary abuse, continues to deepen.

The redress scheme was designed to make it easier to access redress than taking a case to the civil court. However, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority already has a similar redress scheme in which the decision is based on the balance of probabilities. That is different from a criminal court, which decides on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt”, and the victim does not need to wait for the outcome of a criminal trial if there is already enough information to make a decision on a case. Crucially, however, the 2021 act suggests that the victim would waive their right to take future civil action and any subsequent payment from civil action, and if there had previously been a criminal injuries compensation scheme payment, the act would require that it be reimbursed.

I welcome the redress scheme, but I think that it is flawed. Most important, the 2021 act was designed to provide financial redress to survivors of historical sexual abuse while in care in Scotland. Welcome though the legislation is, it is too narrow in scope. When I questioned the Deputy First Minister on the eligibility criteria for the scheme, and on whether victims of sexual abuse in a school setting, for example, should also be included, he responded by saying that the scheme is designed to compensate those in situations where the state—a care home, in this case—had undertaken parental responsibilities.

However, the bill that led to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 used the term “in loco parentis”, which has the effect of transferring parental responsibilities to schools temporarily. There are many allowances as to where that can be true, including specifically for the Fornethy survivors. That being the case, the 2021 act is flawed and could, I believe, leave the Government open to a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights and from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, because of its inequality of approach to the victims of a crime, especially such a heinous crime.

Members may be aware that there was a related case in which the judge found that the Irish Government had misrepresented a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights by excluding children who were abused in Irish schools from a redress scheme. Although I accept that the issues in that ruling are not exactly the same, it suggests that the 2021 act could be open to a similar legal challenge. Again, the Fornethy survivors sit directly in that path.

As I said, the 2021 act was and is very welcome, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that it is the very best that it can be for all those who have been victims of such a heinous crime and have to carry that burden throughout their lives. Financial redress will not heal their wounds, but it will at least perhaps give them comfort that their voices have been heard, and in the acceptance that they have been victims.

However, I think that more needs to be done on understanding the journey of those victims—both those who speak out and those who initially cannot do so. The repeated trauma of retelling their story to multiple agencies, and the lack of accessibility and adequate support, are all part of the jigsaw.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Government has a commitment to those who have suffered such a crime, but I think that it needs to be braver. It will need to look beyond the limitations of how the 2021 act is currently deployed for those who have suffered in similar ways but are currently excluded, including the Fornethy survivors. If the Government does not do that, it will require the legislation to be amended further down the road. We need to make the act everything that it could be. I speak on behalf of the Fornethy survivors and all those other child abuse victims who are yet to have similar redress.

I know that it is unusual to be brought back in. On Mr Ewing’s point, I have highlighted the lack of record keeping across all local authorities, which seems to hamper things. The key here is that you only have to have probability; you do not have to have proof. I also underline the phrase “in loco parentis”—it is key to your deliberations. Thank you for allowing me back in.

Cabinet secretary, you indicated that you will not support my amendment 1. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, by removing some of the safeguards, you are having a significant impact on the operation of the Equality Act 2010 in Scotland.

Here is the reality: we cannot hide from the impact of the bill and not prepare guidance for sporting governing bodies, coaches and teachers. It is not a case of whether women will get injured, or when, because it is already happening.

I have seen that personally. As you know, I have three daughters, one of whom is a young teenager who participates in a combat sport. At one contest, standing opposite her was a trans woman bigger than me. That is the reality in Scotland right now. Thankfully, that trans woman recognised her advantage and restricted herself. That will not happen all the time. Women will get injured if we do not clarify what the rules and regulations are for sporting governing bodies, coaches and teachers.

I am afraid that that is factual, cabinet secretary, because that is happening around the world.

Having listened carefully to the cabinet secretary, I will press amendment 1. It has been mentioned that the numbers are small, but we already know what the numbers are. In this year’s New York marathon, there were 45 finishers in the non-binary category, three times more than the year before. We must ensure that we collect data. If that trend continues, the non-binary category will grow and grow. That is great, but we need to understand the impact of that, including on other categories.

This is already a live issue in sport, and it must be dealt with. We must collect data. I am not suggesting anything in my amendment that is not already happening in sport.

Sport is already gathering that information. As I said, in many sports, when someone enters a competition, they must specify whether they are male, female or non-binary. It is actually simple to gather that information, and it is incredibly important.

As I said, across the globe, from sport to sport, people are struggling massively with this issue. I am not sure what is happening with track and field, but at one point cycling accepted trans women in women’s competitions, but then that policy was changed, and rowing currently accepts trans women in women’s competitions. At the moment, sport does not know how to deal with the issue. Difficulties are faced not only by national governing bodies, which I will talk about later, but also by teachers and coaches across the world and in this country. It is important that, as the bill progresses, we understand the implications for sport.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says that, as it is currently drafted, the bill impacts on the Equality Act 2010 in certain circumstances. It is important for sport to gather that information so that we can understand how to act on it for the benefit of all.