Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are tight for time and, as you say, we could spend a whole session on this issue. Mr McMillan made the point about somebody being locked away for 50 years. That is not good enough and the money could be spent elsewhere. I will not continue that discussion, but the committee is focusing on it.

In response to Lorne Berkley, I note that we are looking at autism. The focus of the committee is on patients who cannot get autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments and on waiting times in child and adolescent mental health services. You are all in agreement that those are huge areas that need to be looked at.

I will go on to my second question. Access to affordable food is a huge issue, and nobody seems to have grasped the ears of that elephant in the room. Ms Mulvagh, you mentioned access to good-quality affordable food. I have a few facts.

Sixty per cent of the food that is consumed on this island is produced on this island, and that has not changed for about 100 years. That is a fact. Another fact is that the majority of people do not achieve the dietary requirements set by the Government, so the quality of food is going down dramatically. Charlie McMillan talked about his 86-year-old father. When we were growing up, we all got used to quality food that was locally sourced, but now the direction of travel is taking us somewhere completely different. If we were to take a holistic human rights-based approach, we should do rural proofing of our food supply to ensure that it is sustainable and affordable. I know that Professor O’Hagan mentioned that theme when we talked about rural proofing of health. However, instead, we have this drive to industrialise our landscape with huge monster pylons and substations. It looks as though our energy strategy and planning are geared towards one thing, and the danger with that direction of travel is that we will not be able to source our food locally or have quality food.

Professor O’Hagan, what are your views on the potential for a human rights-based national food strategy in Scotland, bearing in mind the context of that holistic landscape?

It is agreed unanimously. Thank you.

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak. It is important that I support this very important petition. Unwanted sexual choking and non-fatal strangulation in cases of domestic abuse is pervasive among women, particularly women under the age of 40. I would like the committee to note the incredible work that Fiona and Germain Drouet are doing, through their charity EmilyTest, to stop violence against women in educational institutions. Fiona Drouet is here today, at the committee, to stress the importance of this. The committee knows how important the matter is and that she is tracking the petition very closely.

Non-fatal strangulation must be a stand-alone offence. Historically, aggravators have not been applied consistently, and, without the creation of that offence, nothing is likely to change despite any attempts that might be made to educate. Having a legislative add-on would actually minimise the severity and the seriousness of this particular crime, not only for victims and survivors, but for perpetrators. The cabinet secretary references the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill as a potential legislative vehicle. However, thus far, the Scottish Government has made no commitment to amend the bill in accordance with the petition.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of Fiona Drouet in thanking the committee for taking the matter seriously, for having this discussion a month after the last discussion of the petition and for recommending—as you have just said, convener—that the petition be referred to the Criminal Justice Committee, which I think is the right place for it.

It is absolutely clear to the committee that we must tackle this pernicious problem before more lives are irreparably damaged and lost. The lives and safety of young women and girls depend on it, so I thank the committee for recommending that the Criminal Justice Committee take evidence and progress the petition.

Jan, my colleague Evelyn Tweed asked about “serious gaps” in the Highlands and Islands. In the north-east of Scotland, there seem to be huge issues with rural proofing, including problems with access to healthcare and the centralisation of other services, and a lack of efficient, effective public transport. For example, the X7 bus service has been reduced, which has had huge impacts on the population, including severely negative impacts on people with learning difficulties. General practices are closing at twice the rate in rural areas as they are in the central belt, which is also a huge issue. Practices are in crisis because they are struggling to cope and survive.

That lack of rural proofing by the Scottish Government is a massive problem. In your view, what can the Scottish Government do to address it? Do you believe that Scottish ministers understand the significant impact on rural and remote communities?

So you will keep at it, but the jury is out.

Jan, in your opinion, what barriers have prevented full implementation of the coming home implementation plan and how should accountability for the failures be enforced?

From my experience of being on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I know that social workers are at the core of the system, but figures from the Scottish Association of Social Work paint an alarming picture. For example, 25 per cent of social workers leave the profession within six years of graduation, and 19 per cent of the profession is over the age of 55. The total vacancy rate is just under 10 per cent, and, in Angus, in my area, it is 15.7 per cent. Many of those vacancy rates are long standing. Social workers are at the core of the system, so that constant churn of social workers is alarming.

In your view, has the Scottish Government failed to follow up on the coming home implementation plan? The infrastructure, including the workforce, is simply not in place for it to do so.

I previously sat on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and we completed an inquiry into self-directed support last year. It is clear that the system is not working. SDS is not working, and vulnerable people are being badly let down. The SHRC report highlighted specific issues with self-directed support. What are your concerns about SDS, and how can they be remedied?

I have a final question on this area. During the committee’s evidence session on the proposed but delayed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill, we heard the alarming figures that 90 per cent of women with learning disabilities have been subjected to sexual abuse and that just under 70 per cent of them experienced sexual abuse before they turned 18. Did the SHRC’s research for this report encounter safeguarding concerns in institutional settings?

You have, Cathy. The buck stops with the Scottish Government and Scottish ministers.

My final question is, what communication have you had with Audit Scotland on that? Are you aware of whether it intends to undertake work on this area following your report? As you say, questions need to be asked.