Chamber and committees

I thank Paul McLennan for securing this evening’s debate.

I swithered over whether to speak in the debate, but here I am. I am here because I can be. I have a voice, and I can use it. Not all women have that privilege. So, I have a responsibility to use my voice in the on-going fight for gender equality, even though it is often an exhausting, frustrating and demoralising fight.

We know that gender-based violence is a cause and a consequence of gender inequality. We also know that there is nothing inevitable about it. We still live in a deeply patriarchal world. However, I am not going to rehearse the arguments for equality here, or talk about the policies that we need to achieve it. I am not going to repeat the statistics on inequality or its impact on society, though they are harrowing, life changing and life ending. I am not even going to relay examples of the trauma that women have experienced. What I want to use my voice for this evening is to challenge each and every man in the chamber to up his game.

In Paul McLennan’s email about this evening’s debate, he specifically asked men MSPs to be here. On 25 November, we had a debate on violence against women and girls. On 30 November, we had a debate about justice and the 16 days of activism. Over the course of those two debates, eight men spoke—four in each debate—whereas 23 women spoke. In the justice debate, there were three interventions, all by men, two of which were in speeches by women.

Why do those numbers matter? Well, I think that it is telling that, in a Parliament in which just under 35 per cent of members are women, 75 per cent of speakers in those debates were women. On the face of it, that is not surprising—women face the consequences of gender inequality every day and have lived experience of it. Of course we can expect women to have lots to say about it, and it is right that we listen to women, but that only eight of 84 men thought that they should contribute to those important debates speaks volumes, too, because it is men who are the perpetrators of the vast majority of violence against women.

So, I challenge all the men in this Parliament to look critically at your behaviour, as you have a responsibility here: a responsibility to call out sexist behaviour and language whenever you encounter it, including in your own heads, 365 days a year; and a responsibility to consider your behaviour in this place of work, in social, private and intimate settings and—importantly—in this chamber. Even in this chamber, gender inequality is obvious, and it is damaging.

In the recent debates that I referred to, I have paid tribute to the organisations and individuals who work to support survivors, who raise awareness of gender inequality and who put their bodies on the line, every day, to do that work. This evening, I want to close by paying tribute to one of those organisations—the Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre Dundee and Angus—and all those who turned out to support it at last night’s event in the cold and dark on Dundee’s waterfront.

The keys to a safer future event saw people gather to write messages—mostly of hope—on tags and tie them with a key to the waterfront fencing. Many women, probably including many of us in this building, have carried keys or similar in their fists—in our fists—as defence against the fear and intimidation that we face on a daily and nightly basis. The event in Dundee was a bold statement of intent to reject the fear and intimidation that for so long have kept women afraid and prevented them from walking alone. I was not able to be there, but I want to close with the words that were written on one of those tags and one of those keys to a safer future:

“May my granddaughter wrap herself in the velvet darkness and lose her gaze in the stars without fearing the shadow at her shoulder.”

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for securing the debate and giving us time to discuss what more we can do—there is much more that we should do—to ensure that Scotland achieves equality for every one of the 20 per cent of Scots who are disabled. I also thank all the individuals and organisations who provide support, advocacy and so much more to disabled people across Scotland.

Households with a disabled person experience a relative poverty rate that is 6 per cent higher than that for the general population. Disabled Scots are just less than half as likely as non-disabled people are to be employed. In 2020-21, disability hate crime, not including crimes that go unreported, rose by 14 per cent, and the figure has risen by more than 600 per cent since 2010-11.

The Scottish household survey tells us that disabled people are more than twice as likely as non-disabled people are to experience loneliness. Those facts say a lot about the depth and breadth of disability inequality in Scotland. In almost every way that it is possible to think of, disabled people can be—and are—discriminated against, overlooked and disadvantaged.

For too long, disabled people have borne the brunt of cuts to our social security system. Just a few weeks ago, tens of thousands of unemployed disabled Scots living on low incomes had £20 a week cut from their universal credit payments. However, with about one in 10 Scots claiming one of the devolved disability benefits, we have a truly golden opportunity to advance equality for disabled people.

Our social security system in Scotland is built on the idea that social security is an investment. Indeed, the Scottish Fiscal Commission projects that spending on the new adult disability payment will eventually be more than £0.5 billion. The commission also predicts an extra £40 million of consequential payments to carers of disabled people. It is absolutely right that that will happen, and I am proud that the Greens were central to it.

Getting to this point, however, has taken years of campaigning by disabled people, and organisations that represent them, to highlight the damage that has been done by the personal independence payment and by welfare cuts. There have been countless protests outside jobcentres and hundreds of thousands of appeals, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been affected. Therefore, disabled people, their voices and their experiences should be at the heart of our new system. In particular, the forthcoming review of disability benefits must be led by disability benefit recipients and must leave nothing off the table that might increase support and access to support.

I would like to touch on the impact of climate change on disabled people. Last year, the United Nations published a landmark study into the impact of climate change on disabled people, which presented evidence that disabled people are more likely to be left behind during evacuations and that emergency information is not always accessible. Earlier this year, extreme heat in Canada saw huge numbers of people with mental health conditions being treated for heatstroke—sadly, some died of it—because drugs that are used to treat certain mental health conditions can cause reduced heat tolerance.

Worldwide, disabled people experience poverty at more than twice the rate of non-disabled people, and we know that it is the world’s poorest people who experience the most severe impacts of climate change. However, the Glasgow climate pact contains just a single passing reference to disabled people. Inclusion Scotland, which organised the first ever disability-focused event at a climate change conference of the parties, said that the agreement is

“very disappointing in relation to active involvement and participation of disabled people in climate action”.

Without proper involvement of disabled people, well-intentioned measures to tackle climate change, plans to build a new society and attempts to support vulnerable people properly will further marginalise them.

We must ensure that all that we do has disabled people front and centre, and that their voices are heard. That applies not just in debates such as this, or on the international day of disabled people tomorrow, but every day.

Dr Lee, you have not specifically spoken about this, but do you want to add anything?

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for coming in. Ewan MacDonald-Russell and Colin Smith have both spoken about the shortages of, and issues with, HGV drivers. I want to explore that and, in light of what Jamie Halcro Johnston said, to ask about what lessons we can learn and what we can do in the future. What impact have the policy announcements had on the various changes to how HGV drivers can function—such as those on the emergency visa scheme and changes to HGV testing capacity—had on the shortage of drivers? How is that situation different from the example of the poultry worker that Ewan gave earlier? Also, what is the impact on you and your members of the increased labour costs and increased salaries that the drivers have been getting? What can we learn and what do you need for the future?

I thank Jamie Greene for securing this debate on the 33rd anniversary of world AIDS day, which was the first international health day. I also thank all the organisations and individuals who do such important work in supporting and caring for people living with HIV, their families and their friends, raising awareness about HIV and AIDS and busting the myths around this disease. I would also like to send my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one—or more than one—to the disease or to the stigma and bigotry associated with it.

It is just a little over 40 years since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States published a report on the deaths of five previously healthy gay men aged between 29 and 36 that marked the beginning of the recognition of AIDS. As we have heard, a few months later, the UK recorded patient zero’s death. In the intervening years, somewhere between 33 million and 50 million lives have been lost—and probably more, given poor diagnosis in many parts of the world in the past 40 years.

Others in the chamber have spoken movingly and powerfully about the situation in Scotland and the United Kingdom and the work that is needed if we are to achieve the target of zero HIV infections by 2030. I want to speak about some of the more global issues that the virus has presented us with. As we are reminded daily, none of us is safe until all of us are safe.

The global story of HIV/AIDS is multifaceted. Grief and loss are intertwined with activism and rage. Scientific triumph is mixed with futility and resilience. Sadly, a thread of suffering still runs through the story. Underpinning all of that are fundamental questions of equity, discrimination, stigma and justice.

I speak of scientific triumph: in 1996, when the results of the first successful trials of the triple-drug antiretroviral therapy were presented at the international AIDS conference in Vancouver, hope and relief spread across the world like wildfire. I remember the news stories in Zimbabwe: there was a treatment that would save lives.

However, it quickly became clear that the HIV patients on ART were in high-income countries, while most people living with HIV were in low and middle-income countries. The period between 1996 and 2003 saw the peak of AIDS-related deaths, with sub-Saharan Africa being the worst affected region in the world. AIDS care was costly. People with money might survive; people without would die. Issues such as the AIDS denialism of Thabo Mbeki’s South African Government did not help, but that people’s life chances depended on geography and wealth was, and is, morally and ethically unacceptable. Action was needed.

In 2003, George W Bush announced his emergency plan for AIDS relief. With that, and the creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2005, the needed billions began to flow. Political campaigns saw the cost per patient of ART plummet from tens of thousands of dollars a year to less than $100 per year. Death rates declined and mother-to-child transmission slowed. New and better drugs and preventative tools were developed thanks to massive public sector investment. Those same HIV research networks and trial sites proved instrumental in the development of a Covid-19 vaccine last year.

Yet, the global pandemic continues. Parts of eastern Europe, central Asia, the middle east and north Africa are seeing increasing infection rates. The absence of life-saving, life-extending antiretroviral therapies means that needless deaths continue to mount up. HIV is, increasingly, an infection affecting more marginalised communities: poor people, sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender people, those who inject drugs, adolescents, and prisoners and detainees. Stigma and prejudice live on. Covid-19 has exacerbated those challenges.

We must recognise what we learned in the 1980s and 1990s about the value of sustained investment in science, but we also must recognise the importance of global solidarity and of activism, and advocacy. That is why today, and this debate, are so important.

I will pick up on the points that Karen Adam and Karen Wylie made on the way in which we think about location. I am mindful of what Richard Susskind said about innovation and the need to think beyond what we have, rather than just replacing what we have with a digital or online system. I am also mindful of what Ruth Crawford said about the second principle: the constitutional right of access to the courts.

The system that we have now—or had pre-pandemic—is not the product of any strategic decision making based on evidence, as Richard Susskind outlined. We are thinking about what we have learned over the past 18 months about the use of digital, online and telephone services—alternative mechanisms of being in contact—and we also need to think about where something happens. We have the physical place of the courts and of people’s homes or, if they are supported by organisations to allow people to give evidence, safe places. However, can we learn something from the codified bairns hoose or barnahus principle, in relation to child witnesses or young people who have been the victims of crime, that still allows for the clear principle that Ruth Crawford spoke about but which takes away some of the tensions and conflicts that are inevitable in a court setting, whether online or in a physical court room?

I like your optimism, Ruth.

I will pick up on what might be quite a broad issue in relation to our systems and processes. You mentioned that judges are well used to determining whether certain courses of action should be taken or alternatives should be found. I have an anecdotal point. I have spoken to somebody who supports survivors of domestic abuse. With the Covid emergency legislation, domestic abuse trials have been virtual by default, but I understand that only about 10 have actually been virtual, because the defence usually objects. In whose interests are such balances weighed?

That is a very small point in relation to the much broader questions of whether our justice system gets gender, racial and other diversity issues in a meaningful way and how we can not plug those into the system but be mindful of them. How can we work with the equalities unit and other organisations to make sure that we are not entrenching inequality?

Both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic, there have been certain entrenched impacts that might have disproportionately affected women, people of colour and some of the more marginalised people, whether they are victims, complainers or defendants. I am interested in how we navigate that space. I do not think that our justice system gets gender at the moment, for instance. We have an opportunity at least to try to address that.

I echo the cabinet secretary’s thanks to the review’s co-chairs and everyone who supported its work, especially the families who have lost loved ones in custody—I extend my sympathies to them.

The review highlights that, despite their best efforts, its authors

“experienced challenges in securing the participation of prison staff”

and had no control over

“ensuring randomised selection of participants and informed consent.”

Similarly, no women in custody participated. Those issues should be significant causes for concern, perhaps the latter especially, given recent and forthcoming discussions about gender inequalities in our institutions.

Will the cabinet secretary outline what additional information and research he thinks is necessary to ensure that we better understand the experiences and views of women in custody, as well as those of the prison staff who support them?

I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests; I used to work for a rape crisis centre.

I have spoken before about what I think our justice system is for. Fundamentally, it should exist to correct imbalances of power, but we do not have to look far to find power inequalities in our justice system, never mind in our society. Earlier today, we discussed the “Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody” report. Our prison system is necessarily a system in which there are entrenched structural power imbalances. We accept that, but it does not mean that anything goes, nor does it mean that we do not need to put in place safeguards and structures to ensure that power is wielded responsibly and compassionately.

Today, on the sixth day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, we discuss the role that our justice system should play in correcting the imbalances of power that are so deeply embedded in our society that violence against women and girls is just something that all of us women live with every day. However, it is not inevitable.

Gender-based violence is on the rise: sexual crimes are up by 12 per cent on last year’s figures and the pandemic has allowed domestic violence to flourish. We continue to see, in our courts, conviction rates for sexual crimes that are not just disappointing but are—to be quite frank—outrageously low. That is on top of the eye-watering delays and the backlog of cases, many of which will involve survivors of gender-based violence—women and children who are bearing the brunt of power imbalances.

Those delays impact negatively not only on our justice system but on survivors, which results in increased stress, poor mental health, repeated retraumatisation, increased attrition and so on.

None of that gives people confidence in the system, and that makes it less likely that survivors will report crimes or seek support. I ask the cabinet secretary to outline, in closing, how we can tackle the backlog in our courts.

Around 70 per cent of cases in the high courts involve serious sexual offences, which predominantly affect women and children. At a recent Criminal Justice Committee meeting, the Lord Advocate stated that she considers

“that sexual crime is different from other forms of crime”

because it is

“rooted in and perpetuates gender inequalities”,

and therefore

“requires a distinct response.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 3 November 2021; c 7.]

She went on to state her support for judge-led trials, encouraged a more “radical” approach and argued that we have a moral obligation to consider alternative actions that allow for recovery and renewal.

That speaks directly to the question that the minister posed in her opening speech. Is justice gender blind? I think that we can all agree that our justice system does not yet get gender. Implementation of the recommendations in Lady Dorrian’s report cannot come soon enough, and I look forward to the report of the misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland working group next year. I do not wish to pre-empt its findings, but I emphasise that we must find a way of dealing effectively with misogyny.

Last week, I highlighted Rape Crisis Scotland’s “Survivor Reference Group—Police Responses in Scotland Report”, on police responses to survivors. It shows just how far we still have to go in tackling institutional and societal sexism and misogyny, and in spreading awareness and understanding of the importance of trauma for both justice and recovery. That point was also made in the report on the response to deaths in custody.

We have heard much about the training and awareness raising that police officers and other workers in our justice system do, or should, undertake. However, it is clear that despite trauma-informed training being available, survivors of sexual crimes are still treated very poorly by people who should know better. Culture change is needed, and leadership is needed to catalyse that culture change. We all have a role to play.

I say to all those who are currently experiencing gender-based violence: you are not alone, and help is available. You can call the domestic abuse and forced marriage helpline 24 hours a day on 0800 027 1234, and you can call Rape Crisis Scotland’s helpline every evening between 6 pm and midnight, on 0808 801 0302.