Scottish Parliament, 4 November 2025

769 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Mandy Evans Ewing, who is a humanist.

Mandy Evans Ewing (Humanist)

Hello, and warmest greetings to everyone here, in this chamber, and beyond. Thank you for the opportunity to share some reflections this afternoon.

Recently, as summer transitioned into autumn, I celebrated being 60. Every year of my life, this season seems to take on a greater resonance. The palette and hues are broader and more vibrant. The leaves dance more joyously, the air smells more earthy and musky, and the light is more golden, more soft and more warm.

It is a time to reflect on the year’s events, accomplishments and challenges; to consider what we have learned and how we have grown; and to release and let go of what no longer serves us, as the trees show us in the graceful shedding of their leaves. It is a time to embrace change, breathe and be still. It is a time to appreciate the harvest of our human spirit; the rich well of consciousness, emotion, reason, empathy, goodness, kindness, love, peace, purpose, inner strength, resilience and creativity that we have the capacity for; and the ability to have profound experiences of awe, connection and joy, which give motivation to live meaningful lives and work towards a better world.

May we be particularly conscious of how we use all that energy, for it creates our reality. We are all worthy of peace. May we be honest about what energy we bring to the table and what energy we are setting in motion.

The first law of thermodynamics states that no energy gets created in the universe and none is destroyed—it just changes form. Everything that we can examine contains an energy of vibration. All those vibrations coexist at the same time. It is to that vibration that everything and every person is connected, whether we are aware of it or not. The droplets that glisten on the spider’s web in the garden remind me that our existence means that we inherently belong to the web of life and to our one human family.

Yoko Ono said:

“spring passes and one remembers one’s innocence

summer passes and one remembers one’s exuberance

autumn passes and one remembers one’s reverence

winter passes and one remembers one’s perseverance”.

To give reverence to the world that we want to create—one of wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity—in every possible moment, may we find warmth and love in our own and one another’s bounteous and generous hearts. Choose presence and peace over power and position, and elect love over fear.

Topical Question Time

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business that applied to the future farming investment scheme, and as a member of NFU Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government how decisions on the award of offers of grants for the future farming investment scheme were made. (S6T-02727)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The FFIS was co-designed with the industry and prioritised a number of businesses and business types. As with any support scheme, applications were assessed using a bespoke scoring system and being in a priority group assisted in increasing an applicant’s score but did not guarantee success. Given the level of demand, offers of grant were made to those assessed as delivering the best outcomes against the scheme’s overall objectives.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The scheme was supposed to help priority groups such as young farmers, new entrants to farming, tenants and island businesses, but only about one third of the total funding has gone to those groups. The figures that are available suggest that larger and longer-established farming businesses on the mainland of Scotland were successful, which has left many farmers and crofters struggling to understand what the scoring criteria were—some suggest that selection was just a lucky dip and others say that names were pulled from a hat.

Can the minister set out the process by which his officials decided who was successful? Was artificial intelligence used at all in the process? Can he explain why many applicants who met four or five of the priorities were unsuccessful while others who met none have been offered grants?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I cannot talk to the specifics that Jamie Halcro Johnston raises, but I say clearly that I absolutely understand the frustration felt by any farmer who put in what they believed to be a very good application but who did not receive funding.

He asked me to set out the process. The FFIS scoring model applied six core objectives: business efficiency, business sustainability, environmental protection, greenhouse gas reduction, climate adaptation and public good. Funding requests were assessed to recognise realistic and proportionate applications, ensuring value for money. Equity adjustments were applied for smaller and lower-capital businesses and a 20 per cent priority multiplier was applied to new entrants, young farmers and small business tenants. Priority status alone did not guarantee funding, because, as I have already said, applicants also had to demonstrate strong alignment with scheme objectives and the ability to deliver measurable outcomes.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Speaking on Radio Orkney this morning, the minister claimed that the scheme was co-designed with stakeholders and was as good a scheme as the Government could put forward in the time that it had to get that money out of the door as quickly as possible. However, information obtained by the Scottish Conservatives following a freedom of information request reveals that pressure on the timescales was caused by the cabinet secretary’s demands that the scheme must be ready to go and to be announced at the Royal Highland Show. That was despite Mairi Gougeon’s own concerns, expressed by her office, that

“we haven’t had those meaningful discussions with stakeholders at an early stage and are presenting them with the complete package”,

which is

“not in the spirit of the commitment that was made.”

Is it not the case that the minister rushed out the scheme without proper engagement, which meant that millions of pounds of public money—funding that the farming sector so desperately needs—risks being spent on a scheme that will not meet its objectives and that has left thousands of farmers, crofters and agricultural businesses disappointed?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

That is quite simply not the case. The scheme was co-designed and we had numerous discussions with various stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union Scotland. A decision was made that we would make the scheme work for the communities that it was targeted at. The money has not been wasted: it has gone to farmers who have shown a clear appetite and are prepared to put in the time, effort and investment to ensure that they help us on our journey to create biodiversity, reduce emissions and make farming sustainable for the future, which is something that we should be very proud of.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The future farming investment scheme has shown that there is an appetite across Scotland’s agricultural sector to invest in sustainability, productivity and resilience. The Opposition is conveniently overlooking the fact that the Scottish Government provided more than £21 million to assist with that. How will the grant awards that were made benefit Scottish agriculture? Does the minister agree that the lack of a fair multi-annual funding settlement from the United Kingdom Government represents—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I want everyone to be able to hear what everyone is saying.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will finish my final sentence. Does the minister agree that the lack of a fair multi-annual funding settlement from the UK Government represents the biggest impediment to our ability to increase our support for and investment in Scottish agriculture?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely agree with everything that Emma Harper has said.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What a surprise!

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government is unequivocal—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions and I would like to get everyone in. Minister, please continue.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I repeat that the Scottish Government’s support for Scotland’s farmers and crofters is unequivocal. We have provided a novel approach through the FFIS to deliver up-front investment to the sector to deliver on Scottish Government objectives.

The UK spending review failed to recognise Scotland’s greater share of the UK landmass and seas and their potential to contribute significantly to the UK’s climate and nature restoration targets. Instead of the long-term funding certainty that was available to us during our European Union membership, we now have an inadequate settlement within the United Kingdom that does not keep pace with the funding that Scotland received before we left the EU.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have already seen changes introduced by the Government that have a negative impact on our island farmers and crofters, such as the 410-day calving interval and aspects of the whole farm plan. The minister gave assurances that he would be cognisant of islanders’ needs when bringing forward policies, yet only a tiny fraction—less than 1 per cent—of the funding is going to the Western Isles, as highlighted by Donald MacKinnon, an active crofter and former chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation. We also hear reports of a huge number of rejected applications across the Highlands and Islands.

Why was less than 3 per cent of the funding used to support islanders despite there being no shortage of applications? Was an island communities impact assessment carried out?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Rhoda Grant raises a number of points in that question. There is absolutely no way that what we have done has excluded crofters or islanders. We have the croft house grant scheme and the crofting agricultural grant scheme, so there are funds available—[ Interruption .]

Presiding Officer, I am having real difficulty hearing. I keep getting chuntering from the left side.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am having difficulty, too. I am keen to bring in everyone who has pressed their request-to-speak buttons, and that would be more straightforward if we could get through the questions and responses.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I would really like to try to give some proper answers to the questions, so I beg your forgiveness for asking members to stop talking.

There is no way that islanders have been downgraded in the scheme. We were very clear that we wanted young farmers, crofters and new entrants to get the funding. However, people were not guaranteed to get funding just because they were in those categories, because applications had to be robust in relation to the objectives in the first place.

We had a total of more than 7,000 claims, but only 4,000 of them were actually eligible. There have been some calls to look into why certain claims in certain areas were not taken forward, but they were not eligible for a range of reasons. I am happy to write to the member to tell her what those reasons are.

The overall picture is that the scheme has demonstrated a huge appetite from the members of the farming and crofting community. They want to get involved in the scheme and we want to make sure that we are delivering on that. We have kept the basic support for farming, the Scottish upland sheep support scheme and the voluntary coupled support. In those schemes, Scottish farmers are absolutely in line with the work of the Scottish Government, because we are doing them by co-design.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There will be winners and losers when any scheme comes to fruition, but I have been taken aback by just how many people have been angry and annoyed that they have been unsuccessful in this case because they are clearly part of the priorities of the scheme—they are young farmers, new entrants, tenants and island businesses.

When the minister saw the provisional results, did he drill down to see why those priority groups were not successful? He has just told Parliament that 3,000 of the more than 7,000 applicants were not eligible. Did that information go back to the applicants? Most of the people that I have heard from were told just that they were not successful, and not that they were not eligible. Will the minister provide a regional breakdown of the numbers of applications that were submitted and the numbers that were successful so that we can see the success rate in each constituency and region across the country?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am absolutely happy to provide the information that Douglas Ross has asked for. On the point about a breakdown, we set out the scoring system and the funding that was available, but the scheme was massively oversubscribed. That goes back to the point that I made to Rhoda Grant. Farmers and crofters are clearly prepared to work with us, which is what we have been asking them to do, in order to meet our demands to reduce emissions, create biodiversity and be more efficient.

Although there is an awful lot of negativity, because people are disappointed—and I absolutely accept that people are disappointed—that demonstrates to me that we are on the right road and are trying to do the right things for our farming communities. I will continue to work as hard as I can to make sure that we continue to deliver for them, so that they can help us on that journey.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We were told that islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers would be prioritised in the application of the funding. However, Orkney, which is one of the country’s most agriculture-dependent areas, accounts for just 3.7 per cent of successful applications and 3.5 per cent of the total budget. Shetland and the Western Isles have fared even worse. As Douglas Ross said, there has been no explanation for those decisions, which has left farmers in my community astonished, confused and genuinely angry. I get that demand for the scheme was high, but given the Government’s stated priorities, will the minister explain why it appears that islanders have fared so badly under the scheme?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We will drill down into all the details of what the applications were. As the member will be aware, to come to the specific answers that he has asked for would involve drilling into a huge amount of information. I am more than happy to share that in writing.

I go back to the point that I have made from the start: the scheme was massively oversubscribed, which demonstrates the willingness of our farmers and crofters to be involved in the journey to reduce our emissions and create biodiversity. We will continue that.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

This weekend, my inbox has been full of emails—many from agents who have had less than a good experience. They have submitted multiple applications on behalf of priority applicants such as young farmers, new entrants and environmentally focused business, but with minimal success. In some instances, farmers have gone for exactly the same equipment; one has hit the priorities and got nothing, but others have hit zero priorities and got funding.

It is also concerning that, from what the minister says, it appears that no farmers have been told whether they were ineligible; rather, they were unsuccessful due to the scheme being oversubscribed. How many farmers were ruled out as a result of the scoring methodology that was used, and why were applicants not given the opportunity to justify their choices? Will the minister commit to publishing the scoring framework and outcomes on each individual application, to ensure transparency, and will he commit to urgently engaging with agents to inform improvements to future schemes?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I will not commit to sharing scoring on every single application. I will not use Government resources to that extent, because that would be a massive effort.

On Finlay Carson’s first question, which was about ineligibility, there were a number of reasons. According to my figures, 3,539 people—47 per cent—were not prioritised for funding because they did not meet one or more of the eligibility and compliance requirements. There is a range of what those were: no active farmer; a failure to meet the minimum activity status; not being registered with or approved by the Scottish Government rural payments and inspections division; incomplete or missing investment details; unsupported or inconsistent investment; invalid email addresses, which create a notification risk; previous schemes not having been declared; the application having exceeded the minimum grant threshold; and the recovery ratio being below 30 per cent. There are a range of issues as to why some people were not eligible.

However, I reiterate that we will take the learnings. I bear in mind that the scheme was very generous. We were giving 100 per cent grants for equipment, in order to give farmers the best opportunity to get it. Perhaps we need to rethink the 100 per cent grant. We will ensure that the kind of support that we are putting in place—which is working for Scottish farming—is better targeted in the future.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in light of reports that some people are waiting 10 hours for an ambulance. (S6T-02733)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is not acceptable that some people are waiting for extended periods of time for an ambulance. Officials continue to hold regular strategic meetings with the Scottish Ambulance Service to help it to manage system pressures. The Scottish Ambulance Service is actively engaging with boards at chief executive and senior management level to ensure that they implement measures to reduce delays.

It is important to consider that ambulance crews responded to 547 life-threatening incidents during the week of 20 October, achieving a median response time of eight minutes and 20 seconds.

Our support for the Scottish Ambulance Service has led to a record increase in staffing, with new staff including newly qualified paramedics, patient transport service staff and control staff.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Last week, a footballer with a suspected dislocated knee, who had been playing in a championship match, was left waiting for an ambulance for 10 hours. A month earlier, another footballer waited for five hours after suffering a double leg break. At the time, the First Minister described that wait as an “error”, but now it looks as though it was not a one-off but a repeated problem.

Those are just two examples of the thousands of Scots who are left waiting because the Scottish Ambulance Service is struggling to meet demand. Ambulances are stuck waiting at the front doors of hospitals for more than an hour to discharge patients, which means that they are unavailable to take other calls. What is the cabinet secretary doing about that particular problem to reduce long waits for ambulances?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There are a number of points in Jackie Baillie’s question that I wish to cover. She is correct to point to the case of Charlie Fox’s suspected dislocated knee. Having suffered a knee dislocation 20 years ago, I recognise the trauma and pain that he will have been suffering, which makes the delay even more difficult to understand.

Off the back of the other case that Jackie Baillie referred to—the case of Brooke Paterson, in October—we commissioned the Scottish Ambulance Service to undertake a review of the management of traumatic fractures of patients who were injured outside and could not be moved safely. The terms of reference required a full review of the management of those incidents in the past six months and the triage protocol for them, taking into account the escalation measures in times of higher demand, the capacity of the Scottish Ambulance Service’s integrated clinical hub to review a larger proportion of 999 calls and the processes for identifying patients who are outdoors on the ambulance control systems.

Jackie Baillie is correct to say that turnaround times are affected by the pressures on hospitals. We know about some of the sites where particular challenges exist. Through the use of flow navigation centres and other triage work, work is being done to relieve the pressure on the Scottish Ambulance Service and hospitals. Jackie Baillie will also be aware of the work that is being done with local partners to reduce delayed discharge, so that more people can move back into their homes and be treated there in the longer term through the likes of the hospital at home work.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that there is a problem. In 2014, one in every 100 ambulances spent an hour stuck on a hospital forecourt. By 2025—this year—the figure was one in three. This week, 2,007 Scots waited for more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments, and we are not properly in winter yet.

At the weekend, former Scottish Government health secretary Jeane Freeman said that the Scottish National Party Government has failed to listen to NHS staff. That is why it is getting it so wrong. Does the minister agree, or is Jeane Freeman wrong?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. I will come back to the points that Jeane Freeman raised shortly. The pressures that we are facing in our hospitals are not unique to Scotland. They are pressures that all health systems across the United Kingdom have faced since Covid. Indeed, the deterioration of ambulance response times in England demonstrates the pressure that there is on all parts of the system. [Interruption.]

I can hear Jackie Baillie chuntering away, but the category 1 and category 2 ambulance response times in England in September were the slowest since February 2025, and the category 3 and category 4 response times were the slowest since December 2024. The point that I am making is that that does not excuse the situation that we are facing in Scotland—far from it. The decisions that we are making mean that we are in the best possible position to respond.

I want to ensure that the review that we have commissioned from the Scottish Ambulance Service to ensure that those types of incidents are responded to properly is acted on as quickly as possible. The outcome of the review and the collaboration with the senior management team at SAS is happening now. An urgent implementation plan will be agreed and monitored to ensure that we can respond to the concerns that Jackie Baillie has raised.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I thank our incredibly hard-working staff and my colleagues in the NHS and the Scottish Ambulance Service, who are working day in and day out to reduce delays and bring down waiting times. I am sure that Jackie Baillie will welcome the recent statistics that show that waiting times are coming down in Scotland. How will the First Minister’s announcement yesterday of additional funding for nine health boards further help with that?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I thank Clare Haughey for acknowledging the incredible efforts that are being made by our staff. In this case, the focus is on our ambulance staff, who operate in incredibly challenging situations and to whom I am incredibly grateful.

Secondly, we are seeing increased activity rates. We can see that from the statistics that have come out today on cancelled operations. We have seen a 4 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of operations that are being performed and planned. We have seen activity rates go up, and waiting times—the longest waits—are coming down. Again, that is in contrast to what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The £25.5 million funding increase that was announced on Monday brings our total additional investment in reducing waiting times to £135.5 million this year. That is dedicated funding as part of the record £21.7 billion that has been invested in our national health service. I point out that that was investment that the Labour Party could not support.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner and a previous head of medicine for Queen’s Park.

Queen’s Park defender Charlie Fox suffered a serious knee injury during a championship game that could have resulted in an unnecessary amputation. He was forced to wait for 10 hours, which is the equivalent of almost seven football matches. In some areas, patients are waiting even longer than that. We know that, in the past year, one code red patient in the Highlands waited for more than 18 hours for an ambulance, while another in Lothian waited for almost 17 hours. The median wait is of cold comfort to those patients.

Our paramedics do a brilliant job, but they are left to do it with one hand tied behind their back. There are also home-grown student paramedics who are not getting jobs in Scotland. When will the Government put a proper focus on workforce planning and prioritise getting resources to the front line and away from bureaucracy?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have already done that. As I did in response to Jackie Baillie’s question, I apologise to Charlie Fox for the situation that he faced. I recognise the pain and trauma that he will have suffered while he was waiting. I am expecting the Scottish Ambulance Service to carry out a full investigation into what happened in that incident. When the time is right for Mr Fox, I would encourage him to engage with the Ambulance Service to ensure that the investigation can be done in the most informed way possible.

I have already set out, in response to Jackie Baillie, the work that we have commissioned the Ambulance Service to do to review the management of traumatic fractures, to ensure that such incidents—or, indeed, dislocations, which we have heard about—are able to be responded to properly and timeously.

We have invested significantly in Ambulance Service staffing and that has led to a record increase in staffing, including for newly qualified paramedics. I am obviously aware of the situation for some, and I am working with the Ambulance Service to ensure that, where a newly qualified paramedic’s number 1 geographical area is not available, we can at least support people to understand where the vacancies are and can match them up to those newly qualified paramedics.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The stacking of ambulances outside our A and E departments and the long, protracted waits inside A and E are not a result of a deficiency in emergency care. Instead, they are a result of the fact that, on any given night in Scotland, 2,000 Scots are stuck in hospital who are well enough to go home but too frail to do so without either a care bed or a care package to receive them into the community. That is because this Government has failed on social care.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the situation in our communities is getting worse, particularly in the Highlands, which is seeing care homes close? Will he instruct an urgent inquiry into all preventable deaths caused as a result of the crisis in emergency care?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I share Alex Cole-Hamilton’s assessment of some of the challenges that are being faced around the delays that are being suffered by people who need to use the Ambulance Service and, indeed, by people in accident and emergency.

There is an issue with flow through the system, which is why we are bolstering general practice through the investment that we are making there to support more people in primary care. That is also why we have invested record levels in social care, going beyond our previous commitments to invest in social care to the tune of £2.2 billion.

I recognise that there is significant demand on social care. That is why it is so important that, in addition, work is being done to expand hospital at home services to support people in their own homes for longer, including for people who have such an acuity of need that it is a challenge to meet their social care needs. I look forward to the discussion that we are about to have in 15 minutes, when we can discuss more of these issues, as we do regularly.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical question time. I apologise to those members I was unable to fit in.

Financial Considerations When Leaving an Abusive Relationship

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a Social Justice and Social Security Committee debate on motion S6M-19487, in the name of Bob Doris, on financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

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).

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you. I call Karen Adam to speak on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in my capacity as the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I also welcome the report of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and thank the committee for drawing to my committee’s attention its conclusions in so far as they relate to civil legal aid.

Recently, my committee published its report on civil legal assistance. In that report, we drew conclusions about the provision of civil legal aid that mirror the conclusions that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee reached. I begin by stressing that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee agreed that it is unsatisfactory that primary legislation has not been introduced in this parliamentary session to reform the civil legal assistance system. We are disappointed to note that the Scottish Government’s current consultation, which builds on its legal aid discussion paper, has not taken into account any of the committee’s recommendations for short-term changes.

I turn to the two committees’ areas of common concern. First, on eligibility for civil legal assistance, my committee heard serious concerns about the low financial thresholds for eligibility for advice and assistance. Those thresholds have not increased since 2011, and they include a maximum capital limit of £1,716. It seems inconceivable that someone should be eligible for universal credit but not advice and assistance. We recommend that the financial eligibility limit for advice and assistance be increased to match civil legal aid levels. Moreover, we consider that all levels of financial eligibility for advice and assistance and civil legal aid should be increased in line with inflation since 2011.

I welcome the fact that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to work with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reassess the means-testing arrangements for those schemes and to consider uprating the capital thresholds for both to £16,000, which is the same as for universal credit.

We heard calls for financial eligibility requirements to be waived for certain types of case, including those that involve civil protection orders and gender-based violence more generally. We are strongly of the view that the Scottish Government must pursue reforms with a view to removing financial eligibility tests, to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access civil protection orders. It must also investigate options for ensuring that legal aid is available to a wider selection of domestic abuse cases without means testing.

The committee heard about so-called legal assistance deserts. For example, it was highlighted to the committee that Grampian Women’s Aid has had to make 50 to 60 calls in order to find a legal aid solicitor. That is not a new problem, and we ask the Scottish Government to take urgent action to address the situation.

A key obstacle to improving the provision of legal aid is the current fee levels for solicitors. The committee heard that increasing those rates would have a significant impact on the availability of legal practitioners who are willing to undertake the work. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to review fee levels. We also echo the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s recommendation that fees should be of such a level as to support a trauma-informed approach.

Finally, we urge the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reflect carefully on clawback and unrealistic contributions to costs, because those appear to the committee to currently act as barriers to justice.

I reiterate that the evidence showed that people have been waiting far too long for reform, and we ask the Scottish Government to show greater urgency in delivery.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am pleased to represent the Scottish Government in this important debate. I thank members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for undertaking their inquiry into financial considerations when leaving an abuser.

This Government is resolute in the belief that coercive control, including financial abuse, has no place in Scottish society. We are striving to eradicate the financial and structural barriers that victims/survivors face when they leave an abuser. Through equally safe, Scotland’s strategy to address violence against women and girls, we have taken measures to prevent violence, to build the capability and capacity of support services and to strengthen the justice response to victims and perpetrators. For example, we introduced the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which criminalises coercive control, including aspects of financial abuse.

As a direct result of funding from our annual £21.6 million delivering equally safe fund, the Financially Included project started its work to tackle the economic impact of violence against women. Its impressive work supports women to regain their financial freedom and thrive. This year, we have allocated increased funding to Financially Included to further expand and support the work that it provides and to develop a new Scottish economic abuse helpline.

As a Government, we are committed to doing more. I have asked my policy officials to consider the committee’s report as part of the work to develop the next equally safe delivery plan, which will succeed the current plan at the end of 2026.

The issue of social security was raised by Bob Doris, and I recognise the importance of social security issues to this agenda. In Scotland, we have deliberately built a radically different social security system that provides vital support to those who need it, including women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse. Social security staff, including a dedicated safeguarding team, are trained to identify and support those experiencing abuse. However, as the Parliament is aware, much of the social security in Scotland, particularly universal credit, remains reserved to the UK Government. We remain keen to work with the DWP on areas where we have limited power—for example, on the splitting of single-household universal credit payments, which stakeholders have told us is essential to remove a potential enabler of domestic abuse.

Nobody should have to face additional financial hardship as a result of domestic abuse. We recognise that enforcement practices, such as the way in which liability is shared for council tax or having longer debt expiration periods, can create very difficult circumstances for those who are experiencing or have experienced abuse. That is why, during consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we supported an amendment to require a review of how council tax arrears affect those in that situation—and that was included in the bill. We also committed to consult on the council tax debt expiration period. The outcome of the review and consultation will be reported to the Parliament, and that will give us a much clearer understanding of the issues and of how best to respond. This year, we have allocated £2.2 million to roll out a national council tax debt project, delivered by Citizens Advice Scotland, to increase the support available to those who need advice and support on any aspect of council tax, including arrears.

As part of the housing emergency action plan, and as Bob Doris mentioned, we have established a new national fund to leave, which supports women and their children to leave an abusive partner and aims to improve their housing outcomes. As Bob Doris also mentioned, the evaluation of last year’s pilot showed that more than 500 women were provided with financial support. The national fund could improve housing outcomes and could assist with the transition to a more stable and independent future for up to 1,800 women and their children.

The Scottish Government recognises the demands on the legal aid system. I listened carefully to Karen Adam’s speech, and I recognise that the needs of those who depend on the legal aid system have changed significantly since the model was developed nearly 75 years ago. Change is needed to ensure that we have an adaptable, flexible, affordable and sustainable legal aid system that supports people who are facing challenging issues and problems. The Scottish Government welcomes the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into what changes could be made to the civil legal aid system. We are considering that committee’s report, and we will respond to the Parliament in due course. We will continue to work closely with our stakeholders to support women to get the access that they need. Listening to them is vitally important.

Regarding the application of no recourse to public funds, the conditions create significant barriers to leaving abusive relationships. Through the ending destitution together strategy, we seek to mitigate and prevent destitution for people with no recourse to public funds.

I see that I am running out of time, Presiding Officer—thank you for your patience. I finish by assuring the Parliament that we are listening and that we will continue to address this blight on Scottish society.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I am pleased to speak about the findings of our inquiry into financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship. The committee’s report highlights the serious challenges that are faced by domestic abuse victims and how basic financial protections are still missing for many of those individuals. The most recent statistics show that more than 63,000 domestic abuse incidents took place in Scotland in 2023-24: that is one incident every eight minutes.

The committee report confirms that, unfortunately, financial instability is one of the most common reasons why victims stay with their abuser. Many stakeholders were clear that victims who attempt to leave an abusive relationship often face unaffordable housing and rising living costs. Evidence has shown that that is particularly the case for older victims and those with a disability. Age Scotland highlighted that long waiting lists for properties can act as a significant barrier to those individuals. If new care arrangements are also required, the situation becomes even more difficult.

Among the issues in the committee’s report is access to advice and information. Too often, victims are not aware of where to turn when fleeing an abusive relationship. The Glasgow violence against women partnership revealed that a victim would contact, on average, up to 11 services before they get the information that they require.

Local authorities have an important role to play in helping domestic abuse victims. The committee report recommends that the Scottish Government work with COSLA to create a single point of contact within each council area where victims can seek support and advice. It also recommended that the Government work with COSLA to improve the consistency of financial support across different council areas. I hope that the Government will look at those recommendations closely.

We also heard evidence that, in single-sex relationships, it is often the main earner who is the victim of abuse. That challenges the common narrative that financial control always aligns with financial power. It is important that the equally safe framework is able to reflect the needs and circumstances of different victims, including those with protected characteristics.

The Scottish Government must play a role in providing victims with the funding that they need to leave an abusive relationship. In respect of that, the fund to leave pilot scheme is very much welcome. That funding plays a vital part in easing the financial burdens that many victims have to deal with when they leave. The recently announced additional £500,000 for the fund is also welcome. However, the Government must now confirm whether it intends to make the scheme permanent, as the committee’s report calls for.

The committee’s recommendations should be looked at in the light of the urgent need to stamp out domestic abuse altogether. Those of us who are committed to that want to see progress.

Where appropriate, offenders should also have the chance to undertake rehabilitation, in order to lower the number of repeat offenders. In Scotland, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high.

We must also help young people to understand the dangers of domestic abuse and to recognise when a relationship is becoming abusive.

With regard to those issues, I note that the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by my colleague Pam Gosal, is currently being scrutinised by the Criminal Justice Committee. I urge the Scottish Government to support the bill’s important proposals on those issues when the time comes.

Domestic abuse victims deserve and need proper support from the Scottish Government. Those individuals should not have to suffer for a single day longer than is necessary. We hope that the Scottish Government will take the findings of the report seriously and implement some or all of those common-sense proposals to support victims of domestic abuse wherever possible. That is the least that we can do as a Parliament to support them as they progress through a difficult time.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the other members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for preparing this important contribution to our national discussion. I am now a member of that committee, but I was not when the report was prepared. I thank the clerks and all those who contributed the important evidence.

I know that, in this place, we all share the goal of ending violence against women and girls in Scotland by tackling the underlying attitudes and systems that perpetuate it. We all understand that that has to be a priority for any Government and for the Parliament as a whole. Equally, however, we need to understand that that will not result from good sentiments and kind words alone. I therefore welcome the minister’s comments so far in the debate, and I look forward to hearing her closing contribution at the end of today’s discussion.

I have heard—I am sure that other members have, too—harrowing stories from constituents about financial exclusion causing a great number of problems when they are leaving domestic abuse situations. My party and I want to play a constructive and positive role in achieving change. We need to ensure that any legislative efforts are making the impact that women and girls need, and we need efforts that reflect the reality of life for domestic abuse victims in Scotland. The committee’s work goes some way to improving the landscape on that, and Scottish Labour welcomes its recommendations. I will touch on a few that I hope jump out as a priority.

Overall, the equally safe strategy is good, but it can be effective in helping victims only if more is done to raise awareness of its existence. We know that far too many people have no idea about the programmes and funds that are available to them. That information should be present in as many settings as possible, especially during people’s lives in education. We heard about the need to inform young women and girls of the help that is provided and the platforms where they can get support throughout their lives. That is important in ensuring that young girls and women grow up knowing what is available to them.

Women who are trapped in an abusive relationship are, in effect, unable to live any form of healthy life. A key component of that is the restriction in their access to finance. That is often deliberate, and it is cruel. Abusers begin the process very early in relationships, so the signs are often there, but, naturally, not everyone can see them, particularly in those early moments. We must use what we have learned from police, social services and health settings to inform policy and improve the offer that we have. That cross-portfolio working is key to ensuring that information and support are provided at the correct time and in the correct way.

If we are serious about supporting women to leave abusive relationships, we must give them the financial freedom to leave. Others have spoken about that. The fund to leave can go a long way to assisting not only women in that situation but their children or dependants. However, we need to consider further whether the current level is enough, how the fund can be accessed and whether it will be brought in across the board.

The evidence that was received during the inquiry highlighted numerous barriers that victims face in accessing the support that they need. A large part of that is about debt, as we have heard from other members. Survivors often face debt that has come through desperation or deliberate manipulation by partners. I know that the minister mentioned that in her speech, but the Government must consider that aspect and work with partners to help victims when they are in temporary accommodation, so that they are not drowning in financial obligations and can maintain their housing. We know that maintaining housing is a key way of ensuring that victims have a more positive outcome.

We, in Scottish Labour, are updating our policies in line with some of the recommendations, and we continue to review their effectiveness so that we can help as many people as possible. We have to improve Scotland with meaningful policy that will not simply disappear into news cycles. The committee’s report is an opportunity to take a step in that direction, and we welcome it.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Poverty, inequality and unresponsive, sometimes heartless, benefits and justice systems trap people—overwhelmingly women—in abusive homes. The report from the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that is before us today lays bare the structural cruelty that allows economic abuse to flourish and the practical barriers that make it so desperately difficult for women to leave. The report tells us clearly that financial dependence is not accidental; it is a predictable consequence of unequal power, austerity and underfunded support.

Equality before the law is a founding principle of our justice system, but that principle means little when survivors cannot access proper legal representation. The Law Society of Scotland has described domestic abuse as a legal aid desert, and the committee confirmed that reality. Indeed, as Karen Adam mentioned, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has also found that. We have heard that women who seek representation might have to approach between 30 and 50 solicitors in order to find one who is able and willing to take their case. That is not justice; that is abandonment.

Legal aid is means tested, but survivors of abuse should never be subjected to a financial test to prove their right to safety or protection. Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid put it perfectly when she asked:

“How are you following Scottish policy in every other area connected to domestic abuse if you are means testing people who are subject to financial and economic abuse?”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 20 May 2025; c 13.]

She was absolutely right. Legal services must be free for all women, children and young people who experience domestic abuse, with no means testing, clawback or arbitrary limits in place. I look forward to the Scottish Government’s response to Dr Marsha Scott’s principled proposal.

The committee also recognised the Scottish Government’s fund to leave pilot, which was a scheme that helped more than 500 women to rebuild safety with grants of up to £1,000. It offered what Citizens Advice Scotland described as a “deep psychological reassurance”—a cushion that made leaving possible. However, as the report highlights, although around 5,000 people are registered as homeless due to domestic abuse, the support reaches only a fraction of those in need. It must be expanded and made permanent.

The Scottish welfare fund can help, but it is stretched and inconsistent. The committee heard from women whose applications were rejected because the fund had run low. Women were forced to go into debt just to heat their homes, which is not what a safety net should look like. Economic abuse is not simply a symptom of domestic abuse; it is a deliberate strategy of control.

The committee heard how single household payments of universal credit allow perpetrators to dominate their partners financially. As Engender and Scottish Women’s Aid told the committee,

“The single household payment is a gift to perpetrators of domestic abuse”.

Next year will mark 10 years since the Parliament was empowered to introduce split payments and eight years since the Scottish Government was required to act. If it were a priority, it would have been done by now.

We must look more broadly, too. The surviving economic abuse project reminds us that women who are unable to find even £100 at short notice are three and a half times more likely to experience domestic abuse. That is why a secure, unconditional income through universal basic income or genuinely fair social security is not a utopian dream but a life-saving necessity.

The victims and survivors whose voices shaped this excellent committee report have survived unimaginable hardship. Our task now is not to admire their resilience but to ensure that no one else is forced to rely on it.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I, too, put on record my thanks to the members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, the clerks and all those who provided evidence for this important report. Anyone can find themselves a victim of domestic or financial abuse. Creeping behaviour and facades of charm mean that it can be difficult to recognise the early signs, but it can ultimately lead to women and children being trapped with no financial means to leave.

In 2023-24, Police Scotland recorded more than 63,000 incidents of domestic abuse. Figures from 2022-23 also recorded that more than 80 per cent of survivors of that abuse were female. We should never ignore that there are male victims of financial and domestic abuse, nor can we ignore that it can happen to those in same-sex relationships. However, the figures are clear that most abusers are male.

We cannot ignore that our society needs to address misogyny and violence against women and girls. Coincidentally, Girlguiding Scotland is in Parliament this week. I met it at lunch time, and addressing the issue is one of the asks in its manifesto for 2026.

My party recently debated the topic at our autumn conference, where we passed a policy package to better protect women and girls. I want to highlight one element of that policy, which is to update the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 to include

“a presumption that the perpetrator of domestic abuse will be required to leave the shared home”,

which would allow survivors

“greater choice and agency”.

Today’s motion and committee report focus on the financial considerations for those leaving an abusive relationship. Domestic abuse in any form is abhorrent. Economic abuse can take different forms, including an abuser controlling a person through restricting them from getting, using or keeping money. As the committee report web page highlights, in 2020, Refuge, a domestic abuse organisation, found that more than 8 million adults in the UK have faced economic abuse. Survivors of economic abuse who find themselves in debt owe, on average, just over £3,000.

In a previous role, I worked with a survivor of economic abuse. After the abusive relationship had ended, the financial revelations were peeled away layer by layer. The survivor knew nothing about some of the debt in her name. She had been coerced into taking out multiple loans and credit cards in her name—often, with the perpetrator standing beside her, intimidating her and making her make phone calls to banks and loan companies. Other debt was taken out in her name without her knowledge, and the amount of debt that was racked up, which the perpetrator used but the survivor did not see, was huge. Some financial institutions—although not all—were willing to recognise their failings and wrote off some of the debt, which enabled the survivor to move forward and rebuild her life.

That situation was many years ago, and there have been improvements in awareness and support. For example, the TSB flee fund provides domestic abuse victims with funds of up to £500, which is not required to be paid back, to pay for the essentials to allow the victim to leave.

As the report highlights, there are many barriers to seeking help and making the first steps. Although help and advice are available online, it can be dangerous to access such support at home, and there can be barriers for older, less digitally confident people. As Age Scotland notes, a quarter of women who have experienced economic abuse are aged over 60. Therefore, I welcome the report’s recommendation that information should be available in physical spaces, which will also help to overcome the issue of online advice not being specific to Scotland.

More information is needed on the impact on women with disabilities, women who are deaf or hard of hearing, and women with literacy difficulties.

It is also important to recognise that the level of domestic and financial abuse across Scotland is not purely an urban issue; the same issues are experienced in rural and island areas. The demand that Shetland Women’s Aid experiences is evidence of the continued need for services and support in my constituency.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. Back-bench speeches should be up to four minutes, and I advise members that there is no time in hand.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate . According to Police Scotland, more than 61,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded in 2022-23, and the figures showed that more than 80 per cent of survivors of that abuse were female.

Leaving an abusive relationship is not easy by any means. When fear is coupled with financial pressures, that can make it even more difficult to leave. Refuge found that more than 8 million adults in the UK have faced economic abuse. When that is coupled with an increase in the cost of living, those in abusive relationships can struggle to leave. A more recent report from Women’s Aid found that it can cost a survivor almost £50,000 to leave an abusive relationship.

Taking that into account, the committee agreed to undertake an inquiry into the financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship. For the sake of time, I will touch on two points in the report.

The equally safe strategy is a joint approach between the Scottish Government and COSLA to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls, and it is welcome that there is general support for that strategy among stakeholders. However, we recognise that a commitment relating to economic abuse should be included, with practical actions to provide financial support for victims and survivors. Financially Included stated that specific measures on public sector debt, housing costs, legal expenses and childcare should be included in the strategy. Therefore, we call on the Scottish Government to update the strategy and ensure that equally safe policies are backed by practical and financial support.

Furthermore, it was concerning to note that awareness of the equally safe strategy was much lower among victims/survivors than it was among stakeholder organisations. Therefore, I am keen to see what more the Scottish Government can do to increase awareness of the strategy more generally.

For us to tackle financial abuse, we need agencies and services to work together and take a consistent approach, so the committee has asked that consideration be given to developing

“a forum where key actors such as the Scottish Government, COSLA, Social Security Scotland, the DWP, and any other relevant agencies and services can work together to prevent financial abuse.”

It is of the utmost importance that any change to the equally safe framework takes into account same-sex relationships and the challenges that are faced by those victims and survivors of financial abuse. I support the Scottish Government reviewing the framework and considering how to improve messaging to encourage those who have been abused within same-sex relationships to seek support, as well as training for staff delivering services to recognise abuse across all relationship types.

The committee received evidence that victims/survivors of domestic abuse are more likely to be affected by benefit sanctions. In the light of that, the committee noted that the UK Government should consider amending the rules for universal credit

“for victim/survivors of domestic abuse to remove the five weeks’ waiting time for new claimants.”

We would also welcome the UK Government providing a single contact so that women can discuss confidentially what their entitlement would be if they leave their relationship. The Scottish Government is urging the Department for Work and Pensions to implement split payments for universal credit by default.

I am certain that we can all agree that coercive control, including financial abuse, has no place in Scottish society. The decision to leave an abusive partner puts individuals in a very vulnerable situation. Therefore, there must be appropriate supports in place that assist individuals in their time of greatest need.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Before I begin, I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for securing the debate, all the clerks who put together the report, and all the organisations and individuals who provided evidence to the committee.

Evidence taken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, as well as by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, of which I am a member, has made one thing clear: the current legal aid model for those who leave abusive relationships is simply not working and is in dire need of reform.

The state of legal aid in Scotland has been poor for a while. I clearly remember Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid telling the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee that she was raising the same issue that she had raised in 2017—nothing had changed. We often hear the term “legal aid deserts”, meaning geographical areas and areas of law in which there is a significant shortage of available practitioners. That is especially true in rural areas, where solicitors who are willing to take up legal aid cases are scarce.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee heard examples of survivors of domestic abuse having to contact 30 to 60 solicitors. In one shocking case, 116 solicitors were asked to take up the case. We heard examples of individuals having to travel 150 miles to access a solicitor. Those are horrific real-life experiences, and let us not forget that behind every call is a real person desperately needing help to escape domestic abuse. The depletion of legal aid lawyers is so severe that it was even highlighted in the United Nations “Concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

The Scottish Government clearly needs to do better. The current legal aid system in Scotland does not account for situations in which survivors of domestic abuse do not have access to their own household funds. Financial and domestic abuse often go hand in hand with abusive partners having complete control of financial resources. Therefore, even though a survivor’s household income might be way higher than the legal aid threshold, she will have no access to those funds. In the committee, we heard of situations in which survivors had no idea what their household income was, as their abusive partner hid that information.

It is shocking that legal aid is not given to those who really need it most. It is little wonder that many survivors do not want to come forward when they do not trust the current system. Survivors of domestic abuse deserve better and should not pay the price for the Government’s delays and failure to support them.

In closing, I think that it is becoming increasingly clear that those fleeing abusive relationships do not have the support that they deserve. Helping the survivors of domestic abuse to get back on their feet is one thing, but we must also ensure that domestic abuse is eradicated. That is why my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at the committee stage, is so important. It has received the support of survivors and third sector organisations and I hope that the Scottish Government and members from all parties will also back it. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government not only to provide survivors with support but to ensure that domestic abuse does not happen in the first place.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I, too, thank the committee, the clerks and the expert witnesses who helped in the creation of the report. I say an especially grateful thank you to everyone who shared their experiences of domestic abuse with the committee, whether through the call for views or as members of the Scottish Women’s Aid survivor reference group who spoke to the committee. It can take a lot to open up about that sort of experience, but doing so can, and does, help other victims of domestic abuse, both now and in the future.

I have never personally experienced any of the things that the report talks about, but that is down to luck, because no one sets out to find themselves in an abusive relationship. I know about such relationships from folk who are close to me, and I have heard from constituents who have been through that experience. They had nothing in common before their abusive relationships began, but they have a fair amount in common now.

When I was selected to speak in today’s debate, I reached out to some of the people I know to hear their thoughts, and I asked if they wanted me to read their words in the chamber. One told me that she did not have the words, but she then went on to list a range of barriers that she had hit when escaping from her ex-partner. What worries me is that a lot of what she told me about is not listed in the report, even though it is more than 100 pages long and contains many important recommendations.

Her experience was that her ex had gradually cut her off from her support network, doing that so slowly that it was not even noticeable. He tracked her phone and had sole access to their bank account. Any income, including child benefit, was in his name, and he kept hold of all the family’s important documents, including her driving licence and their children’s birth certificates. When she and her children got away, they left without identification, a bank account or money—they did not even have a phone that they could safely use. ID is required to access almost all the support that we make available, and a lot of it requires a bank account that money can be paid into—something that again needs ID to set up.

That family could not call the available helplines, and the place that she eventually managed to get away to was not in the city. She did not have a car, a bus pass, bus fares or a support network that she could reach out to and which could get her and her children to where the support was. Even when she got to where she was told to go, the support that she needed was not all in one place. Instead, she was expected to get from Marischal college to a police station in Bucksburn, which, for those who are not familiar with Aberdeen, is a four-mile journey—on foot.

She asked me to raise those points today and to talk about the baseline that is used when support is made available. Unfortunately, a lot has gone wrong for her, which is why such debates and reports are important in enabling us to fix what is not right for others in the future.

In my final few seconds, I will highlight the fantastic Grampian Women’s Aid, which does an amazing amount of work. It goes above and beyond for many women and literally offers those fleeing domestic abuse a lifeline. If you are a woman in the north-east who needs help, Grampian Women’s Aid will help you, so please do not be afraid to reach out.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I add my thanks to the committee and all the stakeholders who participated in the inquiry—particularly those who are victims of domestic violence.

I am pleased that there is cross-party consensus today that Scotland must do better by those who find themselves in these most difficult of circumstances. Today I am talking about women—for they are overwhelmingly women. In 2023-24, 81 per cent of domestic abuse incidents were between a female victim and a male suspected perpetrator. Women have been abused by those whom they trusted most in what should have been the safety of their own home.

It can be extremely difficult to leave an abusive relationship for a myriad of reasons, including the financial impact, the financial risk and the financial complexity of leaving. That is often exacerbated by abusive partners having total control over household finances.

I also give the committee credit for the timeliness of its inquiry—not least for my constituents in Dundee, where rates of domestic violence are the worst in Scotland. In 2023-24, Dundee had the highest incident rate of domestic abuse in Scotland, with 183 recorded incidents per 10,000 people. The Scottish average was 116. The rising levels of domestic abuse are of huge concern. They are fuelled by a culture of misogyny and conspiracy that proliferates online, particularly among young men.

In recent years, rape has had the lowest conviction rate of any type of crime in Scotland. In 2021-22, less than half of rape trials that made it to court resulted in a conviction, compared with an overall conviction rate of 88 per cent in the same year.

I strongly support freedom of expression, but groups have been platformed in my city in recent weeks that seek to deny that reality, and they cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The risks are far too great. One reason is that, beyond the horrific harms to individuals, the connection between domestic violence and radicalisation means that violence against women is a key flag for possible future terrorist behaviours. This is militant misogyny as the root of intolerable evils.

I turn to the committee’s findings. It is fair to say that the success of the Scottish Government’s equally safe strategy has been mixed. During the inquiry, it emerged that many survivors are not even aware of that strategy’s existence. Many agencies and professionals are working hard to support survivors of domestic abuse but, as the committee found, it is essential that key stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Security Scotland, work in a joined-up way and that services are effective and easy to access.

Issues were highlighted with the Scottish welfare fund, including difficulties in submitting applications, delays in funding coming through and budget constraints limiting the help that is available. Although some survivors had had good experiences with the fund, it is clear that more needs to be done to make the service more accessible and, crucially, more responsive in times of crisis and when an opportunity to leave presents itself.

The difficulties around the Scottish welfare fund show the hidden impact of more than a decade of cuts to local government funding. The general capacity of local government to deal with such issues has been reduced as staff leave and are not replaced and as councils are increasingly forced to concentrate on the delivery of statutory duties alone.

For there to be meaningful change, strategies and ministerial pronouncements must be matched by practical delivery on the ground. Too often, I fear, survivors of domestic abuse in Scotland have been let down by a gulf between policy intent and their lived experience. That has to change.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate, and I welcome the committee’s report. I am a previous member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and a current member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.

This debate is about confronting a stark reality. For many women in Scotland, leaving an abusive relationship is not just a matter of courage but a matter of survival and, too often, a matter of money. Financial insecurity is one of the most significant barriers that prevent survivors from escaping abuse. It is a cruel paradox that the very act of seeking safety can plunge women and their children into homelessness, poverty and long-term debt.

Let us be clear that coerced debt is a form of domestic abuse. It is deliberate and it is calculated to control. We have all seen that from constituents. Abusers build debt in victims’ names, restrict access to money and weaponise economic dependence. That traps women in dangerous situations and leaves them financially devastated when they escape. In my East Lothian constituency and in communities across Scotland, we see the consequences of that every day. Women who are supported by services in my constituency report being pursued for council tax and rent arrears that were accrued during abusive relationships—debts that they did not consent to and often did not even know existed. Those debts are not just numbers—they are barriers to housing, employment and recovery.

Homelessness is a common consequence. Often, when women flee, they do so with nothing. They leave behind homes, belongings and financial stability. They enter temporary accommodation, uprooted from communities, schools and support networks. When they try to move on, they face systemic obstacles such as rent arrears, council tax debt and up-front costs that make securing a new tenancy nearly impossible. Additional support for citizens advice bureaux, as mentioned by the minister, is welcome. One survivor told Aberlour that

“debt feels like a shadow you can’t escape”.

That is not just unjust; it is unacceptable.

The Scottish Government has taken some necessary steps. The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 made coercive control a crime. The equally safe strategy addresses financial abuse, recognising that systems can worsen economic inequality and hinder women’s ability to leave. When I was a minister, I participated in the equally safe ministerial group meetings and saw how seriously the Minister for Equalities took her responsibilities in that regard.

The new £1 million fund to leave, which I helped to develop in my time as Minister for Housing, provides vital support for women and children who flee abuse. Scottish Women’s Aid chief executive officer, Dr Marsha Scott, said:

“Scottish Women’s Aid warmly welcomes announcement of a roll-out of the original Fund to Leave pilots to the rest of Scotland.

Every day we and our local Women’s Aid services see women and children struggling to get free of an abuser. The Fund to Leave offers a critical helping hand when women and children need it most. ‘Leaving’ is difficult and dangerous, and the Fund to Leave is such an important step to making leaving and staying free from an abuser a reality across Scotland.”

However, we must go further. We need systemic reform of public debt recovery. Debt collection practices must be trauma informed and compassionate, and survivors should not be aggressively pursued for debts that are accrued through abuse. We must embed equally safe principles across all public bodies, not just domestic abuse services. Legal aid must be accessible, which is an on-going issue that we all need to take forward.

Social security systems must be flexible. The UK Government must end policies that deepen poverty, such as the five-week wait for universal credit and the two-child limit, which disproportionately harm women and children who are fleeing abuse.

The debate is about not just policy but dignity. Let us commit to building a Scotland in which no woman is forced to choose between safety and homelessness, children are not punished for the debts of abusers and financial independence is not a privilege but a right.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I add my thanks to those who gave evidence—in particular, those who gave their personal experience from their own lives.

The report paints a bleak picture of where we are as a country. Nowhere is that more evident than in how we treat women—as others have said, it is mostly women—who are trying to rebuild their lives after abuse. Every week, women across Scotland make the incredibly brave decision to leave their abusive partners; however, too often, that courage is met not with safety or support but with financial barriers, bureaucracy and a lack of somewhere safe to go.

We talk about fairness and dignity in social security, but what dignity is there when a woman who is fleeing violence has to wait weeks for financial help? As Maggie Chapman pointed out, the Scottish Parliament has for 10 years had the power to establish split payments in Scottish benefits, but the Scottish Government has done nothing about that. Words are easy, but action is lacking in that area.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

Let us be clear. The SNP Government has had its powers over social security and housing for years, yet women’s refuges are closing, councils remain overwhelmed and the promise of safety remains just a promise.

Even when women seek justice, they find another wall in front of them. As many speakers have pointed out, the legal system works only if there are enough lawyers to do the work—and there are simply not enough lawyers in Scotland doing that type of work right now. That is because legal aid is underfunded and lawyers are simply walking away from it. That is not justice but a failure to protect the most vulnerable. Only the Scottish Government can be held liable for that.

We owe it to every woman who has to pack a bag in the night and run to make sure that she finds a system that is ready to protect her, not one that makes her live through her trauma over and over again.

It is time for the Scottish Government to act, not just talk, and to provide real housing, real support and a justice system that truly stands with survivors, ensuring that equally safe becomes a living reality, not just some fantasy that the Scottish Government has dreamt up.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We now move to closing speeches. I advise that there is no time in hand and that any interventions should be absorbed within the member’s agreed speaking time. With that, I call Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens for up to four minutes.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Prior to my election, I worked for a rape crisis centre. I apologise—I should have said that earlier.

I begin my closing speech by thanking the Social Justice and Social Security Committee members, clerks and, most importantly, the women of the survivor reference group, whose experiences and insights make the report so powerful. Their testimony leaves us in no doubt. Financial barriers are among the most effective tools that abusers use to trap and punish. Too often, those barriers are reinforced, not dismantled, by our public systems.

The committee found that women might have to contact 11 different services before finding the support that they need, or 17 if they are from a minority ethnic background. Imagine the exhaustion and retraumatisation of retelling your story to strangers again and again, simply to survive. The report calls for trauma-informed training across all agencies. It should be mandatory. Every interaction, whether it be with a housing officer, benefits adviser or solicitor, can either empower a survivor to take the next step or drive them back into danger.

The Scottish Greens have long argued that homelessness and abuse are inseparable issues. The report highlights that 5,000 people become homeless each year because of domestic abuse and many of them lose their homes while the perpetrators remain in place. That is why I am proud that Ross Greer’s amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill means that the Scottish Government is now required to review council tax arrears when domestic abuse is a factor. No woman should be chased for debts that were created through her abuse. No one should lose a home for trying to survive.

The committee’s findings on public debt also make clear how the state can perpetuate economic abuse, from council tax collection to housing arrears. We must end the shaming of survivors through punitive debt recovery.

On legal aid, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, the committee’s evidence was damning. Scarcity, bureaucracy and inadequate funding mean that survivors face impossible choices. Legal aid cannot be a postcode lottery or a privilege for the well-resourced—it is a human right. The Scottish Government’s commitment to reform is welcome, but reform must mean universal trauma-informed access, not further review and delay.

The evidence on social security is just as stark. There are delays in the Scottish welfare fund, a five-week wait for universal credit that drives women into debt before they even leave and split payments that are still undelivered after eight years.

This is a moral test for our Parliament. We cannot claim to stand against gender-based violence while tolerating systems that tie survivors to their abusers through poverty and bureaucracy. Financial independence is safety. Economic justice is freedom. Real justice means building a society in which no woman has to weigh her safety against her solvency.

I look forward to the day when no one in Scotland is trapped in an abusive home for financial reasons and when our legal, social security and housing systems are not barriers but bridges to freedom and dignity. That day cannot come soon enough.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

In closing, I say again how significant the report is in contributing to the change that we all know needs to be made for women and girls who are fleeing domestic abuse.

Jackie Dunbar’s example is still ringing in my ears. It is difficult for women to leave such situations, and we all need to try to fix that and find solutions.

Scottish Labour fully supports the report and we want to work with the Government to ensure that we can deliver on its recommendations. Delivery is crucial.

I commend the committee for holding the inquiry during the first half of 2025. Timeframes are tight for some of the committees, so it is important that it managed to hold the inquiry. Today’s debate has demonstrated how important that work has been and must continue to be.

I again thank those who gave evidence. Sometimes, we forget how difficult it can be for people to give such evidence—for the victims, of course, but also for the staff who work in our policing, housing and social services. It is difficult for them to offer support again and again, because we are not always getting those solutions for people.

The discussions with women with lived experience, the visit to Financially Included, which Bob Doris mentioned, as well as the evidence sessions on the wide range of relevant policy areas, such as housing, social security, legal aid, public debt, immigration status and policing, have paid dividends. The Government should methodically look through and respond to the recommendations.

We have also heard from members across the chamber that the themes in the recommendations that we have all mentioned need to be co-ordinated. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach across the wide range of policy areas and at different levels of government. That is something that we say in the chamber a lot, but we need to improve the delivery of that approach, so I would be interested to hear from the minister what plans she has to try to take it across policy areas.

Many members have mentioned key recommendations that they hope that the minister will do further work on. We know that there are difficulties in accessing advice. Where is that advice? How easy is it for people to access it? What do we have in place to ensure that we get that trauma-informed training for members of staff? What would the introduction of a national roll-out of the fund to leave look like? It is important that we get some answers. Members have also raised important issues around legal aid and investment. This must be a priority for Government. Delivery is crucial. It is a priority for the Parliament and it is most certainly a priority for Scottish Labour. We really value the opportunity to debate the issue this afternoon.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Roz McCall to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have heard some powerful contributions from across the chamber and I thank colleagues from all parties for recognising the importance of this debate.

The speeches from Jackie Dunbar and Beatrice Wishart were both very strong, because they came from a personal angle. We can never underestimate coercion and we can never underestimate what an abuser will do.

Let us be clear about what the committee report tells us. Four years after these issues were first raised, basic financial protections for victims of domestic abuse are still missing. I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for taking action on the issue and for producing the report, and I thank the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the committee.

It is not acceptable that the changes to the process are not further up the priority list; that failure lies squarely with the Scottish Government. I have to agree with Karen Adam: it is disappointing that there has been no civil legal aid legislation in this session. Victims of domestic abuse deserve better. They deserve a Government that acts with urgency, not one that issues warm words while survivors are forced to choose between safety and destitution.

Women’s Aid told the committee that survivors with even modest savings may be left paying for the home they fled while trying to rebuild their lives elsewhere. Engender and Shelter Scotland described women and children being placed in hotels for weeks because councils have nowhere else for them to go. Citizens Advice Scotland warned that debt rules can leave only £1,000 in a bank account. Such rules could literally stop a woman from leaving her abuser. Those are not abstract policy failures; they are barriers that trap victims who are in danger.

My friend and colleague Alexander Stewart highlighted that there is one incident of domestic abuse every eight minutes. That is a horrific statistic and it highlights how important it is that we do something more about this issue.

Mr Stewart, Bob Doris and Maggie Chapman all mentioned that victims might have to approach 11 different services before they get any assistance, which shows that there is a fundamental gap in our system. In her initial speech, Carol Mochan highlighted the need for better knowledge and advertising of the help that is out there so that victims can get the support that they need. That is something that could happen now.

I turn to the minister’s contribution, because she mentioned that there are three or four separate consultations and reviews on the back of the reports from both committees. That only represents further delay, however, because the reports already highlight what needs to be changed. Tangible changes to the system are required, not further consultation and reviews of work that has already begun. I am sorry, but I say to the minister that asking officials to simply consider the report for the next equally safe strategy is not enough. We could have seen much more action if only it had been a priority for the Government. Leadership is what is required now; what has been announced is cold comfort for victims of abuse, given that we are not doing more.

Finally, I highlight the contribution from Pam Gosal, who is actively trying to do something in this space with her Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. We should congratulate Ms Gosal on all the hard work that she has put in to introduce the bill.

The committee has called for commonsense deliverable actions. It asks the Government to make permanent the fund to leave, in order to cover deposits, travel and essentials when a survivor escapes abuse; to guarantee year-round funding for discretionary housing payments so that no council runs out mid-year; to review the Scottish welfare fund to make it consistent, trauma informed and accessible; and to ensure that the equally safe strategy delivers not just aspirations but real, practical financial support. However, progress in that regard remains painfully slow.

The committee has done its job. It has listened to survivors, charities and those on the front line, and the evidence is clear. What is missing now is leadership. The Scottish Conservatives are calling on the SNP Government to stop deflecting and actively move forward to support victims of domestic abuse, because every day of delay risks another victim being turned away, another survivor being forced to return to an unsafe home and another life being put at risk because the system could not help in time.

Let us not make victims pay the price of Government inaction—let us work together to ensure that financial barriers are never again a reason for someone to stay with their abuser. The time for reviews and rhetoric has passed; we need common sense, compassion and action now.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the minister, Kaukab Stewart, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The debate has certainly given us the opportunity to reflect on the financial barriers to leaving an abuser. As we have heard, those barriers are complex and multifaceted. They relate to the control that a perpetrator has over the victim/survivor, for whom the systems do not always work. I want to categorically make clear, and reiterate, the Government’s commitment to addressing those issues.

We have heard many contributions regarding the equally safe strategy, which is co-owned with COSLA and provides a framework for action. Of course, I recognise that further improvements can always be made; however, I will respond to some of the points that members have raised.

With regard to same-sex relationships and those working with LGBT survivors, that is funded work and it is in the strategy. It is important that we see and acknowledge the results of the funded services for survivors, and that includes work in schools and work that concerns awareness-raising campaigns such as the forthcoming campaign on misogyny, which is also referenced in the equally safe strategy. There is also a strand of work under the strategy that concerns training, such as the national trauma transformational programme. In order to ensure delivery across portfolios, I chair the equally safe ministerial group, which meets regularly to ensure ministers and cabinet secretaries are following up on their parts of the strategy.

With regard to the fund to leave, the Scottish Government is clear that financial uncertainty should not be a barrier to women leaving an abusive partner. I note Roz McCall’s recognition of the fund’s positive impact. The Government would like to make the fund permanent, and we will set out further details at the forthcoming spending review.

I am grateful to the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing for prioritising and protecting housing rights for women. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was passed on 30 September, introduced a number of provisions to protect tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. Those provisions fully recognise the vital role that social landlords have in keeping their tenants safe. The provisions include measures to ensure that social landlords fully consider domestic abuse through financial control, particularly rent arrears, when supporting their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse, and that they support women to remain in their homes or to be rehoused, if that is what they wish.

It is vital that women are able to access the support that they need when they need it. Our delivery partners, including local Women’s Aid groups, will work closely with others to ensure that women are fully supported in their decision to leave, and that is why, through the delivering equally safe fund of £21.6 million, we fund a range of organisations to do that. We have also made a considerable investment in vital advice services, such as the economic abuse helpline, Scotland’s domestic abuse and forced marriage helpline and Citizens Advice Scotland. These services make a tangible difference to women’s lives by giving them advice to help them to navigate complex financial systems and rebuild their lives.

On legal aid, the Scottish Government recognises that the legal aid system needs to be reformed. Looking ahead, we will develop a fee review mechanism and explore the fundamental changes that are required to create a legal assistance system that is fit for the 21st century. I am concerned about the lack of availability of solicitors. There are fewer civil solicitors than was the case previously, but they are also more active: in 2014-15, there were 1,067 active solicitors, with an annual average of 12 grants each; by 2023-24, there were 791 active solicitors, with an annual average of 17 grants each. The legal aid system is generally effective in delivering help to those in need, but we recognise that there are challenges in relation to certain types of cases and locations.

I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into legal aid. Its report was published on 17 September, and it is only right that we fully consider its recommendations and conclusions.

Solicitors in all parts of Scotland are able to access the fund for work that they have carried out and legal assistance schemes that are flexible enough to allow solicitors to travel to rural and remote parts of the country to carry out work, should it not be possible to have local solicitors for people to instruct. The Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government on reserved issues, such as the condition of no recourse to public funds and universal credit.

I want to assure the Parliament that my ministerial colleagues and I remain committed to working towards a strong and flourishing Scotland, where all individuals are equally safe and respected and where women and girls live free from all forms of violence and abuse, including financial and economic abuse.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister. I call Bob Doris to wind up the debate on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

As is traditional, I thank all members for their excellent contributions, but it was remiss of me at the start not to also thank our committee’s clerking team, particularly Halla Edwards-Muthu, and the Scottish Parliament information centre, particularly Camilla Kidner, for their excellent work. We are lucky to have such professionals in the Parliament supporting us with our committee reports—I want to put that on the record.

I also want to put on the record something that did not come up in the debate and which I did not mention in my opening speech, which is the issue of inconsistent responses by police officers to allegations of financial abuse and coercive control. That key issue was raised by some members of the survivor reference group. The committee welcomes Police Scotland’s commitment to develop training for officers on identifying and understanding economic abuse and consider opportunities to collaborate with the financially included project, which has raised concerns. I put that on record on the basis that, if victims/survivors have told us that that is an issue, they should hear that said in the Parliament this afternoon.

Marie McNair reinforced the calls that I made in my opening speech for the Scottish Government to take a lead in working together with the UK Government, the DWP, Social Security Scotland, COSLA and other partners to share best practice. I hope that the Scottish Government will drive that forward, irrespective of political differences. There is no political difference when it comes to supporting women who are fleeing violence or economic abuse, and so I hope that such working together will happen.

We also heard a lot about financial barriers; the five-week wait for universal credit is clearly one such barrier.

A theme that has shone right through the debate, and which we heard about in the minister’s closing comments, is the further actions that are required on legal support. I welcome the minister’s comments, but Karen Adam was right to talk about legal assistance deserts. More has to be done, and the committee is right to be frustrated. Pam Gosal and Maggie Chapman spoke about the search for lawyers. Some women, particularly in more remote or rural areas, have had to call up to 50 lawyers to get someone to take on their case. There is sometimes not an equality of arms for women when they seek legal representation, so the Government has to go further on that.

There is always a need for clear information, awareness and support. That is another theme that shone through the debate. I thank Alexander Stewart for saying that having a single point of contact in local authorities would aid in this endeavour, as was recommended by the committee. Carol Mochan spoke about low levels of awareness of equally safe among victims/survivors and the need to have support available in a physical form, perhaps in education settings and elsewhere. That point was reinforced by Beatrice Wishart, and it is important to put it on the record.

I thank members who stressed that economic abuse is not simply a consequence of domestic abuse but a thing in and of itself. Maggie Chapman said that it was a specific instrument of control, and Jackie Dunbar, in a very impassioned and personal speech, for which I thank her, said that it was part of a systematic pattern of abuse. She shared a story from one of her constituents, and Paul McLennan chimed in on that point. Awareness has to grow more generally of what economic abuse and control actually is.

During the debate, we had an inadvertent and accidental demonstration that there is good cross-Government working taking place on economic abuse. Paul McLennan mentioned his involvement in developing the new fund to leave during his time as Minister for Housing. Kaukab Stewart has been pushing forward on that as the equalities minister, so there is clearly joined-up working taking place. More of that would be nice, but it is happening, so that is good to put on the record. Kaukab Stewart also said that 1,800 more women are expected to benefit from the new fund to leave, which is a hugely positive thing.

There was a discussion about whether the Scottish Government is delivering enough. It is always the Parliament’s job to push the Scottish Government to go further. Frankly, whether we are SNP back benchers, committee conveners or members of the Opposition, we should all absolutely do that.

Equally safe is supposed to be the delivery strategy. Therefore, I expect the Scottish Government to think carefully about the recommendations from both committees and about how to ensure that the strategy will not just be warm words—I am sure that it will not be—but will have tangible, deliverable actions, with budgets beside them, to deliver many of the outcomes in the reports, which we have mentioned in the debate. There is much more to be done on that.

We heard that there is much more to be done in relation to the benefits system—not just by the UK Government on universal credit but by the Scottish Government and COSLA and local authorities more generally.

There is much more to be done in relation to public sector debt—that point shone right through the entire debate. There is good work happening in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but much more needs to be done on that, as well as on access to legal support.

I get the feeling from the debate that this is a clear and sincere collective endeavour by the Government and the Parliament and by political parties of every persuasion. All I hope is that, in the new parliamentary session—some of us will be here; some of us will not—we can garner that collective endeavour by the Government, the Parliament and members across parties.

It is only through such collective endeavour, when we agree budgets and strategies in this place, that we can meet the needs and aspirations of the victims/survivors who our committee spoke to, who were eloquent and impassioned in talking about their experiences—I thank them once more for that. I also thank the people providing front-line services on the ground, such as those at the financially included project, who work day in, day out supporting victims/survivors.

Let us come together in this place—the Parliament, the Government and members across parties— not just this afternoon but in the new parliamentary session to meet the needs of all those who find themselves to be victims of economic abuse. That is right for victims/survivors. More importantly, we need to do preventative work so that women can leave an abusive relationship at the earliest signs and are not trapped because of financial barriers.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 44A—the second marshalled list and the second groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds; thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons, or enter “RTS” in the chat function if they are joining us remotely, as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section 4—Lotting of large land holding

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will now proceed with the division on amendment 175. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My proxy vote for Paul O’Kane did not record. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will ensure that that is recorded, Mr Marra.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendment 52 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

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

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to log in. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Macpherson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 52 disagreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 disagreed to.

Amendment 53 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 53 disagreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies, but I had the same problem again. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

You mean yes.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Sorry—I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The vote had not been logged, so I am happy to accept your revision.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 176 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote does not seem to have registered. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Gallacher. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 176 agreed to.

Amendment 54 not moved.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 10, in the name of Mercedes Villalba, was debated with amendment 6. I remind members that amendments 10 and 177 are direct alternatives. They can both be moved and decided on, but the text of whichever amendment is the last to be agreed to is what will appear in the bill.

Amendment 10 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendment 177 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My machine would not take my vote. If it had done, I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 177 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Thomson. I will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Burgess. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 55 disagreed to.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Amendment 178 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 178 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 178 agreed to.

Amendment 179 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 57 not moved.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind members that, if amendment 58 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 12, 180, 287, 181, 182, 288 or 183, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 180 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 180 disagreed to.

Amendment 287 not moved.

Amendment 181 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The app would not connect for me, but I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 181 disagreed to.

Amendment 182 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 288 not moved.

Amendment 183 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 289 not moved.

Amendment 184 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 184 agreed to.

Amendment 59 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 59 disagreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device has lost connection. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Thomson. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

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

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Doris. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60 disagreed to.

Amendment 185 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 185 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 185 disagreed to.

Amendment 290 not moved.

Amendment 61 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61 disagreed to.

Amendment 291 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 291 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 291 disagreed to.

Amendment 62 not moved.

Amendment 186 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 186 disagreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 disagreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 disagreed to.

Amendment 292 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 292 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 292 disagreed to.

Amendment 392 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 392 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 392 disagreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 65 agreed to.

Amendments 293 and 294 not moved.

Amendment 187 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we agreed?