Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1909 calls for the removal of the gender-based domestic abuse narrative and for it to be made gender neutral and equal. The petition, which was lodged by William Wright, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies, guidance, agendas and practices gender neutral; to introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland, regardless of any protected characteristic; and to ensure that all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance, policies and practice for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are gender neutral.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to stakeholders to seek their views. We have now received submissions from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, ASSIST, the Minister for Equalities and Older People, the petitioner, and Abused Men in Scotland—AMIS—which is a male domestic abuse charity that operates a helpline service across Scotland. The submissions have been shared in full in advance of the meeting.

Some key points are raised in the submissions. COPFS says that the current definition of domestic abuse

“includes abuse of male victims by female perpetrators”.

Police Scotland states that there is no sex or gender variance in the level of service that a victim will receive. The Minister for Equalities and Older People states that, in September this year, the Scottish Government will engage and consult on a

“national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men”.

ASSIST states that a gendered approach is important in recognising that men and women

“may require different services and service approaches.”

AMIS recommends that, instead of domestic abuse approaches being gender neutral, they should be gender inclusive, and that measures should be proportionate instead of equal. It raises a concern that the sharing of the overall funding for services that support men and women gives the misleading impression that male services are adequately funded. It also advocates

“Revised gender-informed training for all in the justice system”.

The petitioner’s most recent submission provides further information about his experiences as a male victim of domestic abuse. He also suggests several other stakeholders that the committee may wish to hear from.

There is quite a lot for us to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Thank you for drawing that point to our attention. As a constituency MSP, I have heard examples of that, too. It is very disturbing. That word possibly leads people into a degree of conjecture. In the instance that I encountered, it was more that the constituent felt that something was being covered up in terms of not being able to determine what had led to a death in hospital. It would be useful for us to pursue that as well.

Thank you very much for joining us, Monica. We will return to the petition when we have further information.

PE1931, which was lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second. All legislative and regulatory responsibility for telecommunications rests with the UK Government and Ofcom. The Scottish Government has, however, introduced a programme of work to improve digital connectivity in Scotland, which is what the petitioner seeks to influence.

The petitioner aims to ensure that priority is given to properties with slower internet speeds in rural areas, in particular, and he explains that rural households should have fair access in order to prevent digital exclusion.

The Scottish Government’s initial response sets out the measures that it has taken to date in relation to rolling out internet connectivity in rural areas. The response highlights the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme, which was created to ensure that everyone can access a superfast broadband service.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you. I see that nobody else has suggestions. On that first point, we previously indicated that we might like to undertake a site visit, so I formally suggest that we would like to do that.

David Torrance’s second point is well made. The evidence that we received from the minister was that additional legal protections are not necessary because protections are in place, but as is often the case, we might want to inquire whether those protections are being used.

Are members content to proceed by writing to local authorities?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next continued petition is PE1837, on providing clear direction and investment for autism support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder—that is the key idea—can access support and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When the committee wrote to the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care on 17 November, we were particularly interested to find out whether the proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill would address the petitioner’s concerns, and to know, in the interim, what support measures will be put in place for individuals who have autism but do not have a learning disability or mental illness. We also wanted to know how the minister intended to collect and disseminate examples of good practice.

The minister provided examples of current work and recent pilots, all of which are set out in full in members’ papers. The minister indicated that, should a new commission or commissioner be created via the proposed legislation, detailed consideration would be required on what their powers and duties should be. In the meantime, the Scottish Government plans to collate and analyse good practice from health and social care partnerships.

The petitioner has responded, stating that the minister’s submission, once again, did not explain specifically where autistic people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue can access support. He notes that the pilot projects that were mentioned are time limited and area specific; that post-diagnostic support is required on a lifelong basis and not only at the point of diagnosis; and that the petition is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the chief social work officer committee, later this month.

Do members have any proposals? I suggest that we go back to the minister with the points that have been made. The minister told us that the powers and duties of a commission or commissioner would be reviewed. That might suggest that responsibility for the petitioner’s particular objective might be allocated within that framework, but it has not actually been said. I would be happy to go back to the minister and ask again, very specifically, about the petitioner’s concern about what is proposed for people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to do that, too.

We are going to get some recommendations from the organisations that we are going to. I do not think that we want to be in the deepest darkest hinterlands on a Wednesday morning, abandoned in the forest with a compass. I am not quite sure where we would end up.

We will move to questions, because that may bring out some of the reservations that you still have. We will see what comes up as we do that. The first question tees that up. What concerns do you have about the agreement between HIAL and the Prospect trade union on the future development of air traffic control? How might those concerns be addressed?

You want to know whether the change of heart was cost driven rather than being a “Mea culpa, we might have got it wrong” change of heart.

I will pause you there. You have looked for an independent assessment. What do you think that that would deliver?