Chamber and committees

That has been really helpful. One of the challenges is that, although really good work might be happening in different parts of government—from local government all the way through to the United Kingdom level—things might not be being joined up.

That was really helpful. Whose responsibility is it to do that engagement work with small businesses to make sure that they know that it is not as big and scary as they might think it is? Are the FSB, other business organisations and government at different levels joined up enough? Are we closing the loops and connecting each other in the right way in our approach to narrowing the disability employment gap?

That is helpful. You raise an interesting point on the ambitions to halve the disability employment gap. Does the focus on the easy-to-win ambitions further marginalise from the labour market people with much more complex needs?

The minister will be aware of the repeated flooding that residents in Angus have faced during the past nine months or so. What reassurances can he give them that effective watercourse and river-basin management will protect them from flooding in the coming months?

I am encouraged to have witnessed and been part of such a thoughtful and considered debate this afternoon. There is a significant degree of cross-party consensus on this vital issue. I am hopeful that, where there is not agreement, on-going conversations might enable and support the shifting of some views, and that we might see progress on each of the recommendations of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I thank the petitioner for her testimony and her work, and I reiterate my willingness to work with her and others in achieving robust and effective change.

As many members have said this afternoon, pregnancy should be a happy time. Families should be able to look forward to the birth of a new life with hope and excitement. No one should fear a pregnancy in case it triggers abuse. No one should have to suffer abuse because, or when, they are pregnant.

As Pauline McNeill, Clare Haughey and others have highlighted, the loss of a pregnancy must be one of the most traumatic events imaginable. To have that happen as a consequence of domestic violence only compounds and complicates the pain, trauma, loss and grief that those affected go through. The criminal justice system then fails survivors. The phrase “adding insult to injury” does not even come close. As Clare Haughey and John Swinney have so clearly articulated, we must ensure that the approaches and systems that we have in place to support survivors are the right ones, that they do what we need them to do, and that they do so with compassion and in ways that really do deliver justice.

I am grateful to Foysol Choudhury, Pam Gosal and others for highlighting the importance of having well-resourced organisations to support survivors. We know that third sector organisations do phenomenal, life-saving work. I am also grateful to them.

It is clear to me that we need a change in law along the lines outlined by the petitioner and developed by Dr Neal to address abuse that either intentionally or recklessly ends a wanted pregnancy. There are likely to be different ways of delivering that. We must ensure that, if we go down that route, there can be no impact on abortion law or questions of legal personhood.

Across the chamber, we have different views about some of those issues. However, as the passing of Gillian Mackay’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 this week showed, we can come together despite those differences to protect those whose rights and wellbeing are under threat. I believe that, in the same way, we can co-operate to fill the legal gap that the petitioner has so eloquently and movingly described. I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that that work has the time and resources that it needs and deserves.

Of course, we all wish that we did not need such laws. They come into play only when the worst has already happened—when people have already suffered and lost. Therefore, we must also consider in all that we do how best to address the root causes of domestic abuse—that malignant hostility towards those who are pregnant or have recently given birth. That is why our potentially ground-breaking and transformative work on misogyny must continue, must be courageous, and must be rooted in the real experience of survivors such as the petitioner.

Today’s debate has perhaps given us a glimpse of a Scotland that we would prefer not to see. Indeed, we have been confronted with the failings of both the state and wider society to protect, support, nurture and lift up our fellow human beings. However, if we are to change that and create a world in which laws such as those that we are discussing today are not needed anywhere near as often as they currently are—if at all—we cannot turn away. We must look, we must see, and we must act.

I begin this afternoon, as others have done, by paying tribute to the petitioner, Nicola Murray. Her testimony has been extraordinarily courageous and utterly heartbreaking. I express my personal sorrow for her suffering and multiple losses, my solidarity with her anger at the way in which the criminal justice system has let her down and my admiration for her years of work. That work includes not only her engagement with this Parliament but the creation of Brodie’s Trust, supporting others who have undergone similar experiences and campaigning together for a change in the law.

I also thank Jackson Carlaw and the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for their careful and sensitive work on this serious issue and for securing today’s important debate. I am grateful to all who gave evidence during the committee’s discussion of the petition and to the committee clerks and others for the information that they have collated for us today.

As other members have pointed out, and as we heard in evidence as the petition went through the committee process, today’s debate is not about reproductive rights. The petitioner made that very clear in her original petition information and she clarified it again in her evidence and written submissions. The title of the petition, unfortunately in my view, carries echoes of the US Unborn Victims of Violence Act. That act is a deeply problematic law, which was introduced by anti-choice Republican Lindsey Graham, who is perhaps best known for his dramatic conversion to the cause of Donald Trump. That act is not what the petitioner is calling for, and it is crucial that we recognise that. The body of the petition and its supporting evidence highlight the malignant yet disregarded scandal of the domestic abuse that is inflicted on women by intimate partners during pregnancy and following childbirth, and its life-changing and life-ending impact. As Jackson Carlaw said earlier, Nicola Murray spoke so eloquently about her experience of just that.

It is difficult to ascertain quite how prevalent such abuse is. Answers depend on how and when questions are asked. Rates of reporting are understandably low, especially when women are financially dependent on their abuser. However, the evidence that we have reveals appalling levels of physical, emotional and sexual violence. That is both pre-existent abuse that is exacerbated during pregnancy and after the birth of a baby, and new abuse that is triggered by those events. The petitioner’s freedom of information request to Police Scotland shows that reported cases average four every single day. The real number is, of course, likely to be many times higher than that.

The petitioner has outlined her own experiences of the original abuse and of traumatic treatment by the criminal justice system. I profoundly hope that those systemic problems will be effectively addressed by the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. Earlier in the session, I spoke about the importance of that bill and I will be fighting hard to ensure that it remains robust and radical in protecting the rights of survivors such as the petitioner.

However, we need more. Dr Mary Neal’s submission to the Justice Committee during stage 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 detailed exactly what was needed, but the offences that she proposed were not included in that act. That might now look like a missed opportunity.

My Scottish Green colleagues and I agree with the petitions committee’s recommendations. I have already mentioned the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and the hopes pinned thereon, but we also need to be open to the need for other mechanisms of review and evaluation that go beyond that legislation to support survivors through the criminal justice system. I also believe that there should be a statutory aggravator for causing miscarriage through violence.

I hope that the petitioner and others will understand that we maybe cannot support the petition in its precise current form because of the ambiguity of its title, which could be used to undermine essential reproductive rights against the petitioner’s wishes. However, we need urgent action, including legislative change, to address this particular and tragic form of abuse. I am interested in exploring some of the potential barriers to new legislation that the cabinet secretary mentioned, and I am very willing to work with the petitioner, her organisation and members across the chamber to explore how such abuse can be addressed effectively.

Dr Neal has suggested amending the 2018 act. That is perhaps the logical pathway, and it is one that I would support, although I am aware that such a process would take considerable time and would require to be prioritised in a busy parliamentary timetable. The issue is, of course, related to both the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and the proposed misogyny bill, so such an amendment might be possible through those bills.

I look forward to hearing more contributions to the debate and to returning to some of the practical possibilities in my closing speech.

I come to Elizabeth Baird. How do we ensure that we make the most of what you are telling us is a good system?

Thank you. I come to David McCallum. Given the work that you do with all 32 local authorities, you get a whole Scotland picture. What are we missing here?

I suppose that that enables you to deal with the tension that we have identified exists between providing an inclusive service that is open to everybody and meeting bespoke needs. I know that other members might want to ask about specific areas of need or groups of disabled people with specific needs, but do we have the agility to say, “Come all, but here is a bespoke service for you”?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. You have all touched on this in different ways. Earlier this morning, we heard from representatives of LEPs and local authorities that they thought that there were robust structures and processes in place regarding employability services for disabled people, and that capacity and sustained funding were the key issues in preventing us from tackling the disability employment gap. From what you have said, I get the feeling that you do not think that the employability system is working as well as it should be. Are there structures or processes that we need to transform or change, or to get rid of or replace, in order that we can do what we all want to do, which is to free you up to focus on supporting people into employment?