7.12.08
6.12.08
Forced marriages - speech in the Scottish Parliament 5th. December 2008
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on forced marriages, and I welcome the consultation document that has been issued today.
The minister has outlined why the consultation will be important.
Just last week, the first forced marriage civil protection order was issued in England.
If for no reason other than the fact that the protection offered in other parts of the United Kingdom should be offered in Scotland too, it is essential that we get the consultation right and act accordingly.
I welcome the minister's decision to hold this debate during the 16 days of action against violence against women, thus placing the issue in the broader context of the position of women across the world and the prevalence of violence against women in its many forms.
I always feel rather ambivalent about the Scottish Parliament debate at this time of year, during the 16 days of events.
However, it is of course encouraging to acknowledge that we have made progress, and it is right that we take the time to highlight the positive aspects.
I believe that doing so reflects acceptance—across the chamber and beyond—of the continuing seriousness of the issue, and acceptance of the impact that violence against women has on the life chances, health and wellbeing of, and opportunities for, women and their families.
It is always refreshing to meet people who have been so resilient in their campaigning.
Such people have gathered here today on the issue of there being no recourse to public funds.
I hear what the minister said in that regard, and I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to see how creatively they can solve the problem.
Local Women's Aid organisations ought not to be picking up the tab, and it may be that the Scottish Government can offer emergency resources to take the burden off local organisations while work on the bigger picture is sorted out.
The vulnerable women at the centre of these issues must be the focus of our actions.
Such debates always highlight just how much remains to be done to tackle violence against women in its many forms.
There is always a danger that we might be overwhelmed by the challenge and by the ways in which that violence is expressed, including domestic abuse, rape, the trafficking and enslavement of women, prostitution and forced marriage.
Those examples are experienced globally, but progress will be made through local action—step by determined step—to support individual women, families and communities.
The consultation on forced marriage should be placed in that context.
In discussing forced marriage, we continue to bear down on the broader issue of violence against women.
Forced marriage is a distinct problem and it must be challenged, but it is a problem that is shaped by the same attitudes that still mean that—although women can smash all sorts of glass ceilings and can redefine their roles and expectations—even the most talented and pioneering women can be inhibited and controlled.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the member acknowledge that 38 per cent of the victims in forced marriages are male?
Johann Lamont: I absolutely accept that forced marriage is an issue that is not simply for women—although, because of defined roles in communities, it affects more women than men.
However, I do not in any way dismiss the suffering of some young men in such circumstances.
No matter how talented individual women are, they can be scared in their own homes, and threatened and intimidated outside, too.
Experience tells us that—with forced marriage as with other issues—caring is not enough.
Feeling for the survivors will not address the problems.
We need to understand the causes; resource the people who know how to keep women safe; and tackle the causes through education, provision and legislative action.
There is an added dimension to the debate on forced marriage—the fear of causing some kind of cultural offence.
However, as one young Asian Scot said to me, any right-thinking person must believe that it is absolutely unacceptable to force someone into marriage. [Interruption.]
Even if it happens to only one person, that is one too many.
We welcome the consultation, because it is critical to get it right—to act to protect and support women, but without the unintended consequence of forced marriage being driven underground.
However, we hope that whatever action is taken will be kept under close examination, to ensure that it is having the desired effect.
We must not close the door on any options, and we must ensure that protection is afforded to people facing the problem across the whole United Kingdom.
It is essential to have a proper understanding of the pressures on young people who may be forced into marriage—to know how difficult it is to resist forced marriage and how isolated and vulnerable a person can feel.
There is an irony in the fact that young people are sometimes forced into marriage precisely because they are challenging the roles that are expected of them.
In any provision that we make, we must understand the need to protect the individual and give them both the confidence that they will continue to be protected and the knowledge that, if they have the courage to resist, we will support them in doing that.
We must be able to offer safety, advice, the time that is needed and support in the future.
Young people in such situations need trusted intermediaries—people who understand the families' cultural and community sensitivities and who are able to rebut and resist some of the arguments that are put to the young people.
I ask the minister to reflect on how we can consult the most powerful voices—the voices of those who can talk to their own experience, which are often silenced because they do not have the confidence to come forward.
He may wish to think further about how private consultation can be undertaken with some of those who have survived and are living with their experiences.
There is also the question of education in communities that still believe that forced marriage is reasonable.
It is not an issue of religious belief; it is something that can be challenged inside communities.
People can be supported to do that important work.
There is an issue with resources.
Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements shows that only seven local authorities make any mention of domestic abuse or violence against women as a local outcome.
What reassurance can the minister give that he will act to prevent those issues from being de-prioritised at a local level?
I am not sure whether he is consulting COSLA on that analysis, and I do not think that he is consulting community planning partnerships.
That might be a useful starting point for some of the discussions around the resource implications and the education and support side as well as around the broader legal matters.
When will the advice on equality impact assessments and equality responsibilities in relation to single outcome agreements be issued?
We were promised that advice, but it has not yet appeared.
What has been the role of the national group on violence against women in shaping the consultation?
The group is a powerful forum for such discussions, but I do not know whether it has discussed the issue, and if so when, or whether it plans to discuss it.
That information would be useful to us in forming our view of the consultation. [Interruption.]
What is the group's role in assessing, monitoring and considering the implications of single outcome agreements?
I welcome the debate and recognise the progress that has been made.
I welcome the consultation although, as ever, I regret that it is necessary.
Finally, I congratulate all those in the Parliament and far beyond who ensure that the issues facing survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women and those who are coping with forced marriages are kept in the public eye so that action can be taken.
I urge the minister to sustain the focus on all fronts.
The minister has outlined why the consultation will be important.
Just last week, the first forced marriage civil protection order was issued in England.
If for no reason other than the fact that the protection offered in other parts of the United Kingdom should be offered in Scotland too, it is essential that we get the consultation right and act accordingly.
I welcome the minister's decision to hold this debate during the 16 days of action against violence against women, thus placing the issue in the broader context of the position of women across the world and the prevalence of violence against women in its many forms.
I always feel rather ambivalent about the Scottish Parliament debate at this time of year, during the 16 days of events.
However, it is of course encouraging to acknowledge that we have made progress, and it is right that we take the time to highlight the positive aspects.
I believe that doing so reflects acceptance—across the chamber and beyond—of the continuing seriousness of the issue, and acceptance of the impact that violence against women has on the life chances, health and wellbeing of, and opportunities for, women and their families.
It is always refreshing to meet people who have been so resilient in their campaigning.
Such people have gathered here today on the issue of there being no recourse to public funds.
I hear what the minister said in that regard, and I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to see how creatively they can solve the problem.
Local Women's Aid organisations ought not to be picking up the tab, and it may be that the Scottish Government can offer emergency resources to take the burden off local organisations while work on the bigger picture is sorted out.
The vulnerable women at the centre of these issues must be the focus of our actions.
Such debates always highlight just how much remains to be done to tackle violence against women in its many forms.
There is always a danger that we might be overwhelmed by the challenge and by the ways in which that violence is expressed, including domestic abuse, rape, the trafficking and enslavement of women, prostitution and forced marriage.
Those examples are experienced globally, but progress will be made through local action—step by determined step—to support individual women, families and communities.
The consultation on forced marriage should be placed in that context.
In discussing forced marriage, we continue to bear down on the broader issue of violence against women.
Forced marriage is a distinct problem and it must be challenged, but it is a problem that is shaped by the same attitudes that still mean that—although women can smash all sorts of glass ceilings and can redefine their roles and expectations—even the most talented and pioneering women can be inhibited and controlled.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the member acknowledge that 38 per cent of the victims in forced marriages are male?
Johann Lamont: I absolutely accept that forced marriage is an issue that is not simply for women—although, because of defined roles in communities, it affects more women than men.
However, I do not in any way dismiss the suffering of some young men in such circumstances.
No matter how talented individual women are, they can be scared in their own homes, and threatened and intimidated outside, too.
Experience tells us that—with forced marriage as with other issues—caring is not enough.
Feeling for the survivors will not address the problems.
We need to understand the causes; resource the people who know how to keep women safe; and tackle the causes through education, provision and legislative action.
There is an added dimension to the debate on forced marriage—the fear of causing some kind of cultural offence.
However, as one young Asian Scot said to me, any right-thinking person must believe that it is absolutely unacceptable to force someone into marriage. [Interruption.]
Even if it happens to only one person, that is one too many.
We welcome the consultation, because it is critical to get it right—to act to protect and support women, but without the unintended consequence of forced marriage being driven underground.
However, we hope that whatever action is taken will be kept under close examination, to ensure that it is having the desired effect.
We must not close the door on any options, and we must ensure that protection is afforded to people facing the problem across the whole United Kingdom.
It is essential to have a proper understanding of the pressures on young people who may be forced into marriage—to know how difficult it is to resist forced marriage and how isolated and vulnerable a person can feel.
There is an irony in the fact that young people are sometimes forced into marriage precisely because they are challenging the roles that are expected of them.
In any provision that we make, we must understand the need to protect the individual and give them both the confidence that they will continue to be protected and the knowledge that, if they have the courage to resist, we will support them in doing that.
We must be able to offer safety, advice, the time that is needed and support in the future.
Young people in such situations need trusted intermediaries—people who understand the families' cultural and community sensitivities and who are able to rebut and resist some of the arguments that are put to the young people.
I ask the minister to reflect on how we can consult the most powerful voices—the voices of those who can talk to their own experience, which are often silenced because they do not have the confidence to come forward.
He may wish to think further about how private consultation can be undertaken with some of those who have survived and are living with their experiences.
There is also the question of education in communities that still believe that forced marriage is reasonable.
It is not an issue of religious belief; it is something that can be challenged inside communities.
People can be supported to do that important work.
There is an issue with resources.
Scottish Women's Aid's analysis of single outcome agreements shows that only seven local authorities make any mention of domestic abuse or violence against women as a local outcome.
What reassurance can the minister give that he will act to prevent those issues from being de-prioritised at a local level?
I am not sure whether he is consulting COSLA on that analysis, and I do not think that he is consulting community planning partnerships.
That might be a useful starting point for some of the discussions around the resource implications and the education and support side as well as around the broader legal matters.
When will the advice on equality impact assessments and equality responsibilities in relation to single outcome agreements be issued?
We were promised that advice, but it has not yet appeared.
What has been the role of the national group on violence against women in shaping the consultation?
The group is a powerful forum for such discussions, but I do not know whether it has discussed the issue, and if so when, or whether it plans to discuss it.
That information would be useful to us in forming our view of the consultation. [Interruption.]
What is the group's role in assessing, monitoring and considering the implications of single outcome agreements?
I welcome the debate and recognise the progress that has been made.
I welcome the consultation although, as ever, I regret that it is necessary.
Finally, I congratulate all those in the Parliament and far beyond who ensure that the issues facing survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women and those who are coping with forced marriages are kept in the public eye so that action can be taken.
I urge the minister to sustain the focus on all fronts.
6.10.08
Download Johann's widget for her latest update
Download Johann's widget (left) and get her latest brought straight to your Facebook account/iGoogleaccount/blog/website.
Visit the link below, click on "Get Widget" and follow the short and straightforward instructions to install :
http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/johann-lamont-msp
28.9.08
Scottish Government's programme Speech in the Scottish Parliament 3 September 2008
I will comment on the Government's programme from the perspective of my party's commitment to our central purpose when we were in power, which was economic growth and social justice.
We regard the two as being absolutely inseparable but, during the summer, the First Minister confirmed his view that it is possible to separate economic policy from its social consequences—that we can somehow separate pit closures from the devastation in mining communities.
The great fear is that because the Government's overarching commitment is to only one priority—sustainable economic growth—it may abdicate its responsibility on social justice or naively presume that social good will inevitably emerge from economic activity, when we know that that cannot be the case.
I am concerned that there appears to be no reference to tackling gender, race or disability inequality and no mention of community regeneration and the deep-rooted inequalities in some communities.
We all know that no advance in equality ever happened by accident, and that it is absolutely critical to scrutinise spend with proper understanding and to use evidence about whom it benefits.
I seek reassurance that the SNP will learn the lessons of its first year in power and equality proof its budget and reflect on its decision to accept single outcome agreements without any evidence of equality impact assessments.
I recently met representatives of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to discuss that very issue.
They were obviously concerned, but they told me that the explanation is that the timetable is too tight to expect local authorities to fulfil that responsibility.
That seems to be a perverse argument, given that the Government established the timetable.
I am gravely concerned that the single outcome agreements, which will determine so much in addressing inequality, will not undergo that impact assessment.
The proposed abolition of council tax makes my case.
It is evident that an equality impact assessment of the proposal would confirm that it would not affect the most disadvantaged people because they do not pay council tax, and that those people would suffer disproportionately as a result of the cuts in services that would necessarily follow as a consequence of the largest tax cut, which was so proudly vaunted earlier.
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me finish this point.
SNP members can argue for council tax abolition if they wish, but it is unacceptable to assert that it would address inequality, when it would not.
Bill Wilson: I find it remarkable that Johann Lamont seems to be saying that people on low incomes who may be in poverty do not pay council tax.
Johann Lamont: If the member had listened carefully, he would know that I said that "the most disadvantaged people" do not pay council tax.
It is claimed that abolition of the council tax would meet the needs of the most disadvantaged people.
SNP members can support abolition if they will, but they should not use the poor to defend the policy.
There are serious issues in housing for whoever is in power.
I was determined not to be provoked by the response of the Scottish Government to the announcements by the UK Government.
I was depressed, however, by the line that was taken, which was, "They have copied us."
Even if that were true, which it is not, it is hardly an adequate response to the serious issues that we all face.
The £100 million that has been committed by the Government has been welcomed.
I welcomed it because I asked the Government to release it, but all through the summer it refused to do so, then it did so through pressure.
There are hard questions around that £100 million.
The housing minister confirmed that £40 million of it has not yet been agreed.
The Government has to understand the consequences of the anxiety that that creates.
I do not have time to go into all the housing issues, but I urge the Government to listen—if not to me, then to the housing sector, which says that the Government's core approach is damaging.
If the Government has the stature to reverse its decision in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", it will have our support.
I return in my last minute to social justice.
The minister might wish to reflect on the article in Third Force News that highlights the anxieties of the voluntary sector about what is happening to the fairer Scotland fund, which has, of course, been cut.
The sector says that it is being squeezed out of the social inclusion process.
We all know how important that process is to housing in particular.
I urge the Scottish Government not just to assert its commitment to equality and social justice, but to show its seriousness, if not in response to me then to the serious people in the sector.
Its budget decisions and programme for government should show that, unlike the First Minister, it understands the absolute centrality of economic and social factors in determining Government action.
We regard the two as being absolutely inseparable but, during the summer, the First Minister confirmed his view that it is possible to separate economic policy from its social consequences—that we can somehow separate pit closures from the devastation in mining communities.
The great fear is that because the Government's overarching commitment is to only one priority—sustainable economic growth—it may abdicate its responsibility on social justice or naively presume that social good will inevitably emerge from economic activity, when we know that that cannot be the case.
I am concerned that there appears to be no reference to tackling gender, race or disability inequality and no mention of community regeneration and the deep-rooted inequalities in some communities.
We all know that no advance in equality ever happened by accident, and that it is absolutely critical to scrutinise spend with proper understanding and to use evidence about whom it benefits.
I seek reassurance that the SNP will learn the lessons of its first year in power and equality proof its budget and reflect on its decision to accept single outcome agreements without any evidence of equality impact assessments.
I recently met representatives of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to discuss that very issue.
They were obviously concerned, but they told me that the explanation is that the timetable is too tight to expect local authorities to fulfil that responsibility.
That seems to be a perverse argument, given that the Government established the timetable.
I am gravely concerned that the single outcome agreements, which will determine so much in addressing inequality, will not undergo that impact assessment.
The proposed abolition of council tax makes my case.
It is evident that an equality impact assessment of the proposal would confirm that it would not affect the most disadvantaged people because they do not pay council tax, and that those people would suffer disproportionately as a result of the cuts in services that would necessarily follow as a consequence of the largest tax cut, which was so proudly vaunted earlier.
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me finish this point.
SNP members can argue for council tax abolition if they wish, but it is unacceptable to assert that it would address inequality, when it would not.
Bill Wilson: I find it remarkable that Johann Lamont seems to be saying that people on low incomes who may be in poverty do not pay council tax.
Johann Lamont: If the member had listened carefully, he would know that I said that "the most disadvantaged people" do not pay council tax.
It is claimed that abolition of the council tax would meet the needs of the most disadvantaged people.
SNP members can support abolition if they will, but they should not use the poor to defend the policy.
There are serious issues in housing for whoever is in power.
I was determined not to be provoked by the response of the Scottish Government to the announcements by the UK Government.
I was depressed, however, by the line that was taken, which was, "They have copied us."
Even if that were true, which it is not, it is hardly an adequate response to the serious issues that we all face.
The £100 million that has been committed by the Government has been welcomed.
I welcomed it because I asked the Government to release it, but all through the summer it refused to do so, then it did so through pressure.
There are hard questions around that £100 million.
The housing minister confirmed that £40 million of it has not yet been agreed.
The Government has to understand the consequences of the anxiety that that creates.
I do not have time to go into all the housing issues, but I urge the Government to listen—if not to me, then to the housing sector, which says that the Government's core approach is damaging.
If the Government has the stature to reverse its decision in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", it will have our support.
I return in my last minute to social justice.
The minister might wish to reflect on the article in Third Force News that highlights the anxieties of the voluntary sector about what is happening to the fairer Scotland fund, which has, of course, been cut.
The sector says that it is being squeezed out of the social inclusion process.
We all know how important that process is to housing in particular.
I urge the Scottish Government not just to assert its commitment to equality and social justice, but to show its seriousness, if not in response to me then to the serious people in the sector.
Its budget decisions and programme for government should show that, unlike the First Minister, it understands the absolute centrality of economic and social factors in determining Government action.
30.6.08
Housing, Scottish Parliament, 25 June 2008
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement.
I recognise that there was a lot in it, particularly about people who face repossession and so on, with which we can all agree.
I look forward to further debate in committee on some of the detailed issues of the housing policy, including homelessness, that the statement could not address.
I recognise, as the cabinet secretary said, that "Firm Foundations" secured support for some of its proposals, but ultimately it did not secure support for its key proposals.
The document is troubling because, despite assertions, it did not respond to the coherent opposition to the central proposition around the role of housing associations in particular and developing that agenda.
"Firm Foundations" was unconvincing when it was first published, and the changing context of the current housing circumstances mean that it is now well past its sell-by date.
The current housing circumstances present a huge challenge to the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Administration, to which I hope that the cabinet secretary will rise.
I note in passing that the £2,000 grant for first-time buyers is now officially dead, and that the cabinet secretary has had sufficient sense to back off slightly from the single developer model and will consult further on it.
I urge her to hold on to the option of jettisoning that model altogether.
Regrettably, the key notion of driving efficiencies into housing associations remains, despite the strongly expressed views of housing associations and others that that will expose them to risk in the financial markets, will result in increasing rents and potentially will involve a raid on their reserves, which we all know should be used for the good maintenance of properties and to ensure that they meet the Scottish housing quality standard.
I have three specific questions for the cabinet secretary.
First, she said:
"We will work to ensure that house building is best placed to grow again when market conditions recover."
Does she acknowledge that private sector house builders and housing associations now argue that housing associations have a critical role to play as an anchor for the whole housing sector, in order to sustain the house building sector while conditions remain as they are?
I urge her to reflect on how she might use the housing associations creatively—giving them more resource, not less—in order to provide that anchor.
Secondly, what targets has she set for social rented housing in different areas of Scotland?
Given the fact that home ownership is not now going to be an option, the fact that repossession is a genuine possibility for some, and the level of homelessness, I am interested to know what her targets are.
Thirdly, does the cabinet secretary recognise the disappointment that many housing associations in Glasgow feel because her signalled commitment to independent scrutiny of the Mazars report—which would give confidence to the GHA and to those housing organisations—has not been honoured?
Does she acknowledge the significance of having public confidence in that matter?
Given the role of public moneys in the work of the GHA, will she at least take responsibility by convening the meetings between the GHA and housing associations?
I have said elsewhere that they require supervised contact.
Will she consider convening those meetings to ensure that the progress on which she is insisting is realised?
I recognise that there was a lot in it, particularly about people who face repossession and so on, with which we can all agree.
I look forward to further debate in committee on some of the detailed issues of the housing policy, including homelessness, that the statement could not address.
I recognise, as the cabinet secretary said, that "Firm Foundations" secured support for some of its proposals, but ultimately it did not secure support for its key proposals.
The document is troubling because, despite assertions, it did not respond to the coherent opposition to the central proposition around the role of housing associations in particular and developing that agenda.
"Firm Foundations" was unconvincing when it was first published, and the changing context of the current housing circumstances mean that it is now well past its sell-by date.
The current housing circumstances present a huge challenge to the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Administration, to which I hope that the cabinet secretary will rise.
I note in passing that the £2,000 grant for first-time buyers is now officially dead, and that the cabinet secretary has had sufficient sense to back off slightly from the single developer model and will consult further on it.
I urge her to hold on to the option of jettisoning that model altogether.
Regrettably, the key notion of driving efficiencies into housing associations remains, despite the strongly expressed views of housing associations and others that that will expose them to risk in the financial markets, will result in increasing rents and potentially will involve a raid on their reserves, which we all know should be used for the good maintenance of properties and to ensure that they meet the Scottish housing quality standard.
I have three specific questions for the cabinet secretary.
First, she said:
"We will work to ensure that house building is best placed to grow again when market conditions recover."
Does she acknowledge that private sector house builders and housing associations now argue that housing associations have a critical role to play as an anchor for the whole housing sector, in order to sustain the house building sector while conditions remain as they are?
I urge her to reflect on how she might use the housing associations creatively—giving them more resource, not less—in order to provide that anchor.
Secondly, what targets has she set for social rented housing in different areas of Scotland?
Given the fact that home ownership is not now going to be an option, the fact that repossession is a genuine possibility for some, and the level of homelessness, I am interested to know what her targets are.
Thirdly, does the cabinet secretary recognise the disappointment that many housing associations in Glasgow feel because her signalled commitment to independent scrutiny of the Mazars report—which would give confidence to the GHA and to those housing organisations—has not been honoured?
Does she acknowledge the significance of having public confidence in that matter?
Given the role of public moneys in the work of the GHA, will she at least take responsibility by convening the meetings between the GHA and housing associations?
I have said elsewhere that they require supervised contact.
Will she consider convening those meetings to ensure that the progress on which she is insisting is realised?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)