Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Claire Baker for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank all those who have contributed so far. I associate myself with the remarks that everybody has made about the importance of cross-party working, particularly in this area, and of the quality of the research in this area. That research might be limited, but its quality is so important.

Today’s motion asks the Parliament to recognise and consider the benefits of creating a stand-alone offence for non-fatal strangulation, which, in my view, could see significant improvements to public awareness, data collection, and victim safety and support.

Non-fatal strangulation is a severe form of domestic abuse that is predominantly carried out by men against women. As we have heard, it can have serious and long-term side effects, including brain damage, organ failure and mental health issues. It has potentially life-threatening consequences and can cause extreme trauma for victims.

In her speech, Tess White showed the shocking reality and why we have to highlight it. As the motion highlights, non-fatal strangulation often leaves no visible injuries, but it is a strong predictor of future lethal violence and is becoming increasingly more common, particularly, as we have heard from other contributors, among younger people, who might not fully understand the consequences.

Although non-fatal strangulation is prosecuted as a criminal offence in Scotland under the common law of assault, as we have heard, that common-law route does not always work and can fall short of fully capturing the offence. I believe that exploring how and where improvements can be made might significantly improve outcomes for victims. If we cannot fully capture the offence, we cannot get improvements.

I want to recognise the bold and world-leading action that the Parliament is taking to tackle violence against women and girls. That has been done, because we work on a cross-party basis and listen to each other. I think that that should be put on the record.

As non-fatal strangulation is currently recorded under a range of offences, there is an issue with the recording of—and, indeed, the lack of—data. That is an important element; I do not need to explain just how important data is. It is important not only because it allows us to understand the scale of the problem and to increase awareness, as I have said. Capturing and recording that data is important in a medical sense; it is important for research, which will allow us to change the impacts; and it is important at an individual level, too, at the point at which a victim presents at a hospital. Therefore, it is very important that we get the data right, because doing so will help us increase public awareness of the dangers.

A strong case can be made that a stand-alone law would improve education and awareness of the effects of strangulation and could help improve the long-term safety and wellbeing of the victims. Underreporting is such an issue, and a stand-alone law might help if people really understood what we were trying to record.

I recognise the arguments that Claire Baker highlighted—I, too, was at that round table—from people who have cautioned against introducing a stand-alone offence, given the potential unintended consequences. We could look for a quicker alternative approach, but it might not be as effective and might fall short in addressing the core problems.

Tackling violence against women and girls must and should always be a priority for the Parliament. In my view, it is absolutely worth exploring the creation of a stand-alone offence, as it could send a message. It is important for Scotland that we see this as our absolute priority.

I thank Claire Baker and other members for their contributions.

Earlier this week, reports revealed that the A and E department at Crosshouse hospital in NHS Ayrshire and Arran exceeded capacity by 50 per cent this December. Staff had no choice but to care for and treat patients in corridors. To be clear, this is not just a winter issue—Crosshouse A and E exceeded capacity during seven months of last year. What progress has been made in capturing data on corridor care at both a national and local level, so that we might finally understand the true scale of that risk to staff and patients?

You used an example that I pulled out, too, about the difference in the way in which England is approaching free childcare. Are you keen to make sure that lessons are learned about how we might do some of the things that are positive in the UK strategy?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The strategies of the UK Government and the Scottish Government are set out differently and have different priorities. That is understandable. I am interested in whether there is a wee bit of crossover. To what extent are policies that are already in place in Scotland included in the UK Government’s strategy? Do you see that crossover as helpful? Are there any additional points that you would raise?

I welcome the fact that people in Scotland are living longer, but they are not always living in good health for longer. In East Ayrshire in my South Scotland region, the total burden of disease is estimated to have increased by 2.6 per cent between 2016 and 2019. Will the Government provide an update on the targeted work that it is doing to promote healthy living across Scotland, particularly in our more deprived communities?

I have a few questions about those situations in which a reviewer rejects an application. How might that happen? What reasons might there be for such a rejection, and how might they be communicated to people who have applied?

In that case, do you feel that, if the legislation were to be changed, those cases would not increase in number and that you could manage them as you manage them at the moment?

That was helpful. Are there any other safeguards that you feel that we should put in place to ensure that reviewers are consistent?

Good morning, minister. We have heard evidence on public awareness, which you have spoken about in the past. What needs to accompany the bill in order to raise public awareness about the dangers of such procedures and how to identify reputable practitioners?

Similarly, how can we combat advertising and marketing that perhaps trivialises the procedures and makes it seem like they are not medical procedures? Do we have a plan for that?