Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government has not changed direction and it seems to be focusing on centralisation. Do you think that you have been heard by the Scottish Government?

Do you believe that the onus is on you to speak a bit more loudly, rather than the onus being on the Scottish Government to say, “We have heard you, and we are now going to take action”?

I have a quick follow-up question. If part of the issue is that there are not enough—or there is a high turnover of—social workers, so they are spread too thinly, who will do the action plans?

My next question is about resources. The SHRC’s findings on the community living change fund, which you referred to earlier, are startling. Significant sums have been left unspent and there has been a lack of transparency and accountability relating to the fund overall. Furthermore, money has been used to renovate institutional settings, which the SHRC says is

“in direct contravention of the requirements of the right to independent living.”

That is alarming. It is absolutely shocking.

How should funding be allocated and monitored to ensure that that will not happen again? Have you raised your concerns directly with the Scottish Government? If so, what was its response?

In relation to the 55 people who have been incarcerated for longer than 18 years and the 10 people who have been incarcerated for more than 25 years, we had a powerful witness statement, a few months ago, from an organisation called People First (Scotland). Gregor Hardie gave us each a chart that basically said “Countdown to the Scottish Government’s coming home deadline”. He said that

“the deadline has been and gone without the commitment being met.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 11.]

I have had that up on my wall as a reminder. One could say to People First (Scotland) and those families that there is a dereliction of duty by the Scottish ministers and that the issue lies at the door of the Scottish ministers.

I have a follow-up question. I was struck by the case of Linda, who appeared in the BBC documentary “Jailed: Women in Prison”. Linda has been diagnosed with Gómez–López-Hernández syndrome, which is a developmental disability, and she has been placed in custody at Wintergreen Hall, which is a specialised unit in HMP Stirling. Linda said:

“I don’t want to be out, it’s just safer in here.”

How can we ensure that women such as Linda have the support that they need when they leave an institutional setting?

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak to PE2136. I pay tribute to the petitioner Fiona Drouet, who is here in the committee room. Fiona lost her daughter Emily in the most tragic circumstances after her boyfriend abused her while they were students at the University of Aberdeen. I first became aware of the devastating physical and psychological impact of choking a sexual partner during a parliamentary event that I held with the women’s support service, Beira’s Place, towards the end of last year.

The issue had not come to my attention before then, but once you know about such a thing, you have to do something about it. As you said, convener, there are devastating effects. Within six to eight seconds, a woman loses consciousness. After 15 seconds, her bladder will be incontinent. After 30 seconds, her bowels will open. She will be brain dead within four minutes.

As Fiona has said herself, no one—no woman or girl—could ever consent to this; indeed, there comes a point where a woman or girl is physically unable to do anything about it. How can you consent to something if you lose consciousness? It is not “breath play”—that is a euphemism that men use. They say, “Oh, it’s just breath play during sexual intimacy.” It is not; it is truly frightening, and it can be a predictor of dangerous and potentially fatal behaviour.

The petition, as you have rightly said, convener, calls for a stand-alone criminal offence for non-fatal strangulation. My view is that the common-law offence of assault does not adequately capture the complexity of what is a startling and ever-growing problem. In recognition of the fact that, as the committee has just heard, non-fatal strangulation can occur without obvious physical injury, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland have already introduced stand-alone offences with robust penalties.

I note, as does Fiona Drouet, the concerns expressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs about unintended consequences and what she has said to the committee about having a separate law, especially its interaction with existing domestic abuse legislation. However, that response does not cover two key points. This is a form of abuse and control; it can be part of domestic abuse, but it is also part of violence against women. It is also a non-consensual act. So, although I acknowledge the need to stress test any changes to the current law in Scotland, I am massively concerned that the Scottish Government is kicking the can down the road. This feels like yet another issue impacting women that is being pushed to the bottom of the legislative agenda.

Finally, convener and committee, as a Parliament, we have a year to go—please do not allow this to be lost. We could be talking about your daughters or your nieces. Something needs to be done. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to signal a zero-tolerance approach to non-fatal strangulation, and I urge it to act with the urgency that the issue deserves.

Finally, I have noted that you have said that you want to provide leadership on the PSED and that you want to put your money where your mouth is, yet 80 per cent of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence said that public bodies do not understand and have not implemented the PSED properly. So, there is an issue with public bodies. During the previous evidence session, the EHRC said that there was an issue with the education sector and we have highlighted an issue with hospitals. I have also talked about big issues with Police Scotland.

In relation to the lack of implementation of the PSED, your leadership and putting your money where your mouth is, should you and/or the Scottish Government not suspend the pay rises of the leadership of those public sector bodies that are allegedly in breach of their duties? As a head of HR, if there were a specific issue in a part of an organisation, I could not take money off people, but I could and would suspend pay rises. If you have concerns and you are providing leadership, would it not be a practical thing to say, “Hang on a minute, let’s just suspend pay increases and review the implementation of PSED?”

Before I ask my main question, minister, I want to pick up on something that you said about Police Scotland. You said that Police Scotland is “completely independent”, yet the organisations advising it on equalities policy guidance are, in large part, funded by the Scottish Government. You used the words “dignity”, “fairness” and “proportionate”. I note that there is an organisation called Police SEEN UK, whose views and input the head of HR for Police Scotland would not entertain; Police Scotland would rather have input from organisations funded in large part by the Scottish Government. Given that, I question the use of the word “independent” in relation to Police Scotland. There are huge issues with Police Scotland right now.

I am happy to write separately to you on that, minister.

I suppose that my key point is that you have stated that Police Scotland is “completely independent”—that is what you said—but on policies in relation to equalities, and, I would add, the implementation of the PSED, it is getting its guidance from organisations that are funded in large part by the Scottish Government. So, my question is: how can Police Scotland be independent?

I am interested in the balance of protections for different groups, which we explored with the previous panel, and the conflict of rights that has emerged. You use the words “dignity”, “fairness” and “proportionate”. I agree that those three words are very important. Is it the Scottish Government’s view that public bodies can provide for single-sex services or spaces as a matter of policy; that is, not on an individual or case-by-case basis?