Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, committee, cabinet secretary and officials.

Amendment 85 would introduce a mandatory requirement for the making of non-harassment orders in the sentencing of sexual offenders. Having spoken to survivors of sexual crimes and domestic abuse, it is clear to me that non-harassment orders are vital to their safety. Survivors might feel safe when their abusers are in prison, but what happens when they are released?

Amelia Price, who I understand has contacted the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, was raped and assaulted by her ex-partner. He is currently serving time in prison but is due to be released later this year. The judge in the case was required under law to consider imposing a non-harassment order. However, Amelia was told that he did not impose one because her abuser had not contacted her since she reported him and she no longer lived in Scotland. My amendment 85 would ensure that such orders are issued automatically.

Amendment 241, in the name of my colleague Sharon Dowey, would extend those protections to cases of domestic abuse. The amendment is extremely important, as there has been an epidemic of domestic abuse in Scotland, with the number of cases rising. A freedom of information request showed that, in the financial year 2023-24, non-harassment orders were granted at sentencing in only 38 per cent of domestic abuse cases, so almost two-thirds of survivors live in fear that their abusers could contact them. That is why I urge members to support amendment 241.

Amendment 242, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would also extend the criteria for making non-harassment orders in sexual crimes, and I urge colleagues to support it.

I move amendment 85.

In light of what the cabinet secretary has said, I am happy to work with her before stage 3. Therefore, I will not press amendment 85.

Amendment 85, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 88 not moved.

Going back to what you said about ethnicity data, you are probably aware that women of colour are more disadvantaged. They are also further away from the labour market and, when they are in that labour market and working, they sometimes come across many prejudices. Culture plays into that as well. Are you doing anything around that? You mentioned the mainstreaming strategy. Are you doing any work on how areas such as culture affect women of colour, especially when they are working or looking for work?

You said that further work is needed on the drivers. Is that work being done?

I also want to touch on race, and the fact that people of colour—women, especially—are more disadvantaged in terms of the gender pay gap. Can you say anything about that? You said that work needs to be done in general, but is any work being done in that area?

I want to probe that point. You talk about dignity and respect, and in one of your answers, you said that, as you are a woman of BAME background, like me, you know when an issue is affected by certain religious aspects.

Last week, I said that Governments and organisations were on the one hand giving rights to prayer rooms but, on the other hand, taking away a right to single-sex facilities. As a woman of colour and religion, you know that before a person goes into a prayer room, they have to visit the bathroom. If you are going to a single-sex space, that is fine, because you have respect and dignity, but when that space is up for question and becomes a unisex space—people out there, who are listening to this session, are very confused on this—what happens then? You will not need the prayer room because you cannot go in to the bathroom and do your wudu steps before prayer. What is the use of providing something but then taking away a right somewhere else?

You are right—it is not a competition—but there has to be a fair balance. Right now, I do not think that women of colour—even women and girls who are out there, in general—are finding that balance, because there is no respect and dignity in sharing a unisex toilet or facility with a biological male.

I have a few other questions. You touched on domestic abuse, minister. I have spoken to countless survivors of sexual assault and domestic abuse. Many of those women do not feel comfortable when surrounded by men and have stressed the importance of single-sex spaces. Do you believe that a woman who does not want to share a space with a trans-identified male should have to explain why, for example by disclosing a history of sexual assault or domestic abuse?

Can I probe into that? If a lesbian group excludes trans women, would you say that it is not compliant with the Equality Act 2010?

Thank you. You talked about guidance. Is the law clear on that? I am considering what is happening out there—obviously without talking about a specific case. Is it clear that your guidance states what it states and that the people and organisations that provide services must comply with it, or are there grey areas on which people out there are not getting compliance right?

There are many organisations that make a lot of decisions on their own heads. Those are not collective decisions and they are not decisions that are based on policy or regulation—they are making their own decisions within their own organisations. How can a bit more clarity be provided? How can you give guidance so that people know exactly where they stand when no single-sex spaces or services are provided?

So you could not comment on whether the SPS is compliant.

Minister, I spoke to the EHRC earlier about the interpretation of the law. Without naming any specific cases, you will know that there are on-going issues with regard to the interpretation of the law, including the regulations. I would not say that people are confused, but they are all interpreting the law in their own way—every organisation is. You are right: not every organisation is going out to basically not have those facilities, or to have them. Again, though, the issue is out there, and the waters are pretty muddy. People do not know what they are doing, and the fact is that more and more legal cases are going to come forward, so that clarity can be provided.

Can you shed some light on this, minister? Are you aware that interpretation is not clear? I have talked about regulations, and I mentioned the Equality Act 2010 earlier. Are people complying with them? Do you see that the water out there is pretty muddy when it comes to how people—and organisations, especially—are interpreting the law?