Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not get connectivity. I would have voted no.

On behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I am pleased to open the debate. Before I discuss the substantive issues that the committee explored as part of its inquiry into financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship, I first thank the individuals and organisations who enriched our work on the topic.

The committee’s inquiry began by engaging with the Scottish Women’s Aid survivor reference group—a group of women who have experience of domestic abuse and coercive control. That engagement was invaluable to the inquiry’s work, and I put on record my thanks, on behalf of the whole committee, to the participants for their time and their willingness to share their experience with us. I also thank Financially Included, which is an Easterhouse-based organisation that supports women who have experienced economic abuse.

Financially Included hosted the committee before we started taking formal oral evidence and provided a perspective that it is really only possible to gain by speaking with front-line staff about what they actually experience. We heard from our discussions with the survivor reference group that, although Financially Included consists of only a tiny team, they are amazing; I am pleased to put that on record this afternoon.

Evidence that was provided by individuals and stakeholders was essential in helping committee members to reach the conclusions and recommendations that are detailed in the report. We hope that those reflect the broad societal response that is needed to tackle economic abuse. One in five women across the United Kingdom are either experiencing economic abuse at the hands of a current or former partner or have experienced it in the past 12 months.

We made a number of recommendations for the Scottish Government, which must take a leading role in supporting those who have faced such abuse. The committee is extremely pleased that the Government is investing £1 million in a new national fund to leave for 2025-26. We heard great things about the pilots, and we heard that the Government is committed to making the fund permanent. It is particularly welcome that that support will be open to those with no recourse to public funds—as the committee heard, people in that group face greater challenges in leaving abusive relationships as a result of their extremely limited access to sources of financial support.

Where it was piloted, the fund to leave supported more than 500 women and was widely supported by stakeholders. Citizens Advice Scotland said that the fund offers

“the deep psychological reassurance that comes from knowing that there is a cushion available to get yourself restarted in order to have a safe future”.—[Official Report, Social Security and Social Justice Committee, 15 May 2025; c 13.]

Providing money to enable victims/survivors to leave abusive relationships is vital; however, so is ensuring that we are not punitively taking money away from them. Aberlour Children’s Charity described the system of public debt collection in Scotland as “very aggressive” and said that it further traps people in debt. However, the committee heard that practice varies widely across local authorities. There is good practice out there, and some councils are willing to write off debt. With that in mind, we want local authorities to take a consistent and trauma-informed approach when pursuing debt from victims of domestic abuse that takes account of their specific needs. We ask that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities work together to make that happen.

We welcome the Scottish Government’s investment in increased debt advice provision for those who are in council tax arrears, as well as its development of resources to support best-practice principles for council tax collection. When someone is fleeing a dangerous situation, safe accommodation is an immediate concern. However, if someone is in council tax or rent arrears, that can be a barrier to finding somewhere new to live. That must be addressed. We ask the Scottish Government to work with COSLA to ensure that fear of being made to repay such debts does not prevent someone from leaving an abusive relationship.

It is appalling to think that people are trapped with abusers because debt means that they cannot afford to leave. We therefore welcome provisions in the recently passed Housing (Scotland) Bill for social landlords that suspect that domestic abuse is contributing to rent arrears to take action to support the victim/survivor’s needs. We have also called for those provisions to be applied to the private rented sector. The lack of suitable and safe accommodation options for those who are escaping abuse urgently needs to be addressed.

The issues facing those who experience economic abuse are varied and complex. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s comprehensive equally safe strategy to address violence against women and girls. However, stakeholders highlight that improvements could be made to further recognise in the strategy the impact of economic abuse. Financially Included recommends that the strategy should include specific actions to cover issues relating to public sector debt, housing costs and legal expenses.

The information that is available to victims/survivors also needs to be improved. The Glasgow violence against women partnership emphasised the fact that a woman will contact up to 11 services before she gets the information that she needs. That should not be the case.

Scottish Women’s Aid told the committee that a whole-system response for advice and information is required. Access to legal advice and representation is also essential when someone is leaving an abusive relationship, but we heard that that is not always available. I highlight the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into civil legal assistance, which concluded that there is an urgent need for action to improve the delivery of civil legal assistance.

During our inquiry, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee heard about a number of issues with the legal aid system. In the time that is available to me, I will discuss some of the most pressing concerns. Eligibility for legal aid was a significant concern that members of the survivor reference group raised. The Scottish Legal Aid Board told us that solicitors have the ability to exercise discretion when it comes to financial assessments, but there is a lack of awareness of that discretion, which means that victims/survivors are missing out on the legal support that could make all the difference to their cases. We asked the Scottish Legal Aid Board to address that as a matter of priority and to raise awareness of that discretion in the legal profession and with the public.

The committee heard that arrangements for means testing for advice and assistance are more restrictive than they are for civil legal aid. Along with the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, we have called for the financial thresholds to be reviewed. We also called on the Scottish Government to work with the profession on the fees that are paid to firms for legal aid, given that we heard that the amounts that are awarded are insufficient and can make it difficult to offer a trauma-informed service to victims/survivors.

Following the publication of our committee’s report, the Scottish Legal Aid Board wrote to the committee to respond to the recommendations. We are pleased that the agency has committed to working with stakeholders to create a more responsive and user-focused system for the future—time will tell—and that that will include enhanced training and support for solicitors and applicants.

The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed in June, introduced provisions to widen access to legal services, which the committee welcomes. It will be important to monitor how effective those changes are. During the debate, it would be helpful to hear progress updates from the minister on the committee’s recommendations to the Scottish Government.

The financial barriers to leaving an abusive relationship can be exacerbated by the welfare and benefits system. Best practice needs to be shared between the United Kingdom Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Scottish Government, Social Security Scotland and local authorities. The five-week wait for universal credit is a huge barrier to those who are fleeing domestic abuse, and that wait should end.

There should be a joint group that is led by the Scottish Government. My apologies that my words on this are not precise, because I am doing this from memory rather than from my script, but the committee believes that a group should be convened—to be led by the Scottish Government and to include the UK Government and other partners—to find a way forward that will remove all those financial barriers for women as they leave an abusive relationship. If the will is there, it can be done.

I will make other observations on the committee’s recommendations in my closing comments but, for now, I look forward to hearing from other members.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s 6th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Inquiry Into Financial Considerations When Leaving an Abusive Relationship (SP Paper 849).

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was logged out of the system; I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not work. I would have voted no.

I was not going to speak this afternoon but, having heard the comments, I feel compelled to. I have no idea how many of our colleagues are following the proceedings online this afternoon and will be around to come to a considered opinion and vote on the financial resolution.

I voted against assisted dying at stage 1, and I anticipate that that will be my vote at stage 3. I will work constructively at stage 2 to amend the bill to bring in safeguards, but I have put on record that I do not feel that those safeguards will allow me to vote for the bill at stage 3, for some of the reasons that Pam Duncan-Glancy has outlined this afternoon.

I am still thinking about how I am going to vote as I speak, but my slight concern is that if the financial resolution were not to pass this afternoon, because not all our colleagues were aware that that procedural action—

I ask Mr Mason not to put words in my mouth. I am giving no one an excuse for not being here on a Thursday afternoon. I am here every Thursday afternoon and, quite frankly, I am upset that some of my colleagues do not take that opportunity and seem to leave Parliament early. It is not good enough.

The point that I would make is that Parliament took a view at stage 1 that I disagreed with. The issue is whether we should use that as a mechanism by which to delay the legislation or be against it. I am still listening to the comments of colleagues, including that of Mr Mason.

I thank Mr McArthur for that point, but I would put a caveat on that. In this Parliament, we allocate budgets to all sorts of bodies, including the national health service and health and social care partnerships through local authorities and the NHS. Those bodies have to use the resources that they have to meet all the outcomes that we ask of them. They sometimes tell us that they are stretched and that they are under pressure, which is often challenging. Resources are always limited, irrespective of our aspirations in this place. That is a reasonable point to make.

If there is time, I will take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, but I have no idea whether there is time.

Of course.

It is thus with every financial resolution that comes to this place.

The point that I wanted to make, notwithstanding the interventions from Mr Mason and Mr Balfour, was to the Scottish Government—