Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that, and I thank Megan Gallacher for her intervention. One thing that is clear is that people are not getting the support that they need now. The minister talked about 1 to 2 per cent of people being defined as having made themselves intentionally homeless. That percentage does not talk about the real-life stories of those who have been affected. It might be 700 cases but that is not necessarily 700 people, because some of those cases could be women or fathers with children. Those 700 cases in 2023-24 also relied on other services and third sector organisations that we know are cash-strapped, and there will be knock-on consequences for the health service. Saying that it is just 1 to 2 per cent of cases does not capture the picture and the trauma and the negative consequences for life chances and the opportunities that those people could have.

My response to Jeremy Balfour’s intervention is that we know that people are not getting the support that they need. That is the principle here: we know that the intentionality test serves no purpose other than to be cruel. It makes judgments about people’s decisions to intentionally make themselves homeless, because they are fleeing abuse or situations that are making them unsafe. We know that, and I am quite happy to stand by a principle that says that that is not acceptable.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I hear what Jeremy Balfour says, but I wonder whether he considers the deliberate manipulation of the homelessness system test as a safeguard. We know that intentionality is cruel—it does not work—so let us not tweak it around the edges. Let us get rid of it and replace it with something that will work, such as, as Crisis suggests, the deliberate manipulation of the system test.

I thank the committee for its work on the matter and the cabinet secretary for the many conversations that we have had about the bill over several months.

I am grateful to all the organisations and individuals that have taken the time to speak to me about non-harassment orders. I am particularly grateful to Amelia Price for her dedication to bringing about change.

I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests and remind them that, prior to being elected, I worked for a rape crisis centre.

I will briefly address the two other amendments in the group before I come to my amendment 242.

Amendment 85, in the name of Pam Gosal, does not cover all offences in schedule 3, whereas my amendment does. Her amendment relates only to offences where the perpetrator is known to the survivor. I appreciate that most sexual offences are perpetrated by a family member or someone who is known to the survivor. However, it seems to me a little problematic that her amendment does not cover situations where the perpetrator is a stranger to the survivor. My amendment seeks to address that.

Sharon Dowey’s amendment 241 relates to domestic abuse cases only, as she and Pam Gosal outlined. Her amendment and mine are complementary, and I encourage members to support Sharon Dowey’s amendment.

The need for my amendment has been recognised for a long time. In 2017, at stage 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, the Justice Committee heard from Linda Fabiani, who proposed an amendment that called for mandatory non-harassment orders—her amendment was supported by John Finnie and Scottish Women’s Aid. Linda Fabiani had heard what she described as compelling evidence and quoted a survivor, who said:

“A criminal conviction … was of absolutely no use to me as a victim since that conviction on its own contained no provision to … protect me from further abuse”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 November 2017; c 22.]

Pam Gosal has already outlined the case of Amelia Price, who has been campaigning on the issue for a long time. It is stark that, in Amelia’s case, a non-harassment order was not granted on the grounds that her perpetrator had not tried to contact her. However, that was when he had conditions that restricted his contact. Once those come to an end, there will be no restrictions on whether he can contact her. Therefore, it seems utterly perverse to use that as evidence for not granting a non-harassment order.

We also know from Amelia that there are other risk factors that were not taken into account in the assessment of whether a non-harassment order should have been granted.

We must ensure that we listen to survivors—they understand the risks that they face. Currently, there is no provision for a survivor to challenge a decision not to grant a non-harassment order, other than to take civil action—and we all know the cost, time and trauma that that would entail. We should not put survivors through that.

We also need to recognise that survivors can evaluate the risks of harassment that they face, and we should be doing what we can to ensure that they feel protected and supported. People are much more likely to come forward and report offences in the first place if they know that they will be protected after the fact. That is why I urge colleagues to support my amendment.

Which you lead.

Okay—thank you.

You said that lessons had been learned from previous restructuring. In 2023, I think, Inspiring Futures produced a report on the need to improve communications following the latest restructuring at that time. How have you ensured that lessons and all the recommendations from that report have been implemented in the past four months?

It would be good to know the reasons why that was the case, particularly because I have seen documentation on some of the previous recommendations and, if those things had happened, we might still have financial questions but we would also still have trust in processes such as the risk assessments. It would be useful to see that at some point, although I realise that it is not a priority right now and I am not asking for it urgently.

That is helpful to know.

That is a consultation on a draft plan that already exists; it is not co-design or co-production.