Unless any member objects, I will put a single question on amendments 173 to 178.

As no member has objected, the question is, that amendments 173 to 178 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

I am afraid not.

The question is, that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP))

Abstentions

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)

There will be a division.

For

Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP))

Abstentions

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)

There will be a division.

For

Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP))

Abstentions

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)

I call Russell Findlay to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 78.

That takes us to the next group. Given that it is spot on 11 o’clock, I propose that we have a short suspension of around 10 minutes to allow for a comfort break.

I will draw proceedings to a close, but I want to say a couple of things before I do so. I am conscious that group 10, which we had hoped to get to today, contains several very important amendments of great interest to victims. Maggie Chapman and Pam Gosal were here to speak to the amendments, but I do not want to curtail our ability to have a good debate on those important issues.

As this has already been quite a long meeting, I propose to finish at this point this morning. We will begin next week’s meeting with the group on non-harassment orders, and Pam Gosal and Maggie Chapman will join us then. I hope that members are content with that proposal.

We will pause stage 2 proceedings at this point and resume consideration of amendments at our next meeting on Wednesday, 19 March. I thank the cabinet secretary, the minister and their officials for attending this morning.

Before I get into the substance of my contribution, I commend everyone who works hard to improve the rights and freedoms of women and girls in Scotland. Later this afternoon, I will lead a members’ business debate to mark international women’s day. I look forward to celebrating the progress and advances that have been made to promote and create a truly gender-equal world. I was disappointed not to be able to attend the international women’s day event in the Scottish Parliament last weekend but, from previous years, I know the breadth and depth of the conversations, the topics discussed and the many challenges that have been identified. There is much to celebrate but much to do.

I have spent my entire working life in the public sector, striving to improve the lives of women, girls and those who are most vulnerable in society, many of whom have protected characteristics. In my policing career, that was uppermost in my work across operational and specialist policing, as it was in higher education teaching in the interprofessional learning space and supporting embedding the equally safe strategy across the university—and, now, in my work as a parliamentarian.

Further on in my contribution, I will touch on my involvement, during my policing career, in embedding the public sector equality duty, which exists to protect people from discrimination and is based on the nine protected characteristics.

I am particularly proud of my track record in leading the Criminal Justice Committee, to which Russell Findlay made a significant contribution, through a range of work that has had at its heart the safety, dignity and wellbeing of women and girls. I fully intend to continue that work for the rest of the parliamentary session.

At the heart of the debate sits a much wider issue of ensuring and supporting public sector compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, as set out in the public sector equality duty. While I am in a reminiscing mood, I will reflect on my experience of embedding the PSED in policing. However, I acknowledge that that was a number of years ago, and things have moved on considerably since then. I was grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for updating the Parliament on the breadth of work that is being undertaken by Police Scotland in that space.

It is no secret that, historically, the attitudes, values and behaviour of police officers—most of whom were men—fell well short by today’s standards, courtesy of deeply entrenched cultural attitudes, misogyny and sexism. Embedding the new duty was therefore a significant and costly piece of work to shift the dial on organisational practice and procedures, make significant infrastructure changes, roll out a comprehensive programme of training and shift deeply entrenched attitudes and behaviours. In any organisation in which staff have power and control over the wellbeing of the public, both in the service that they deliver and the environment in which they work, compliance with any duty is absolutely crucial in securing the trust and confidence of the workforce and service users.

I commend the many public sector organisations that work hard to embed good equality duty compliance. As we have seen of late, there is no point in requiring compliance with any duty unless we can assess that compliance. In the case of the tenets of the equality duty, that means eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations across everything that an organisation does.

I have been following the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the PSED in Scotland, and I have noted the evidence of stakeholders on a wide range of issues, such as the need for clearer understanding of the tenets of the duty and the importance of data that informs compliance.

I was interested to hear about the collaborative approach in Aberdeenshire, which involves members and officers working together to consider the challenges that have arisen from a mixed school estate in which facilities in the older part of the estate are less able to comply with some aspects of the duty than facilities in other parts of the estate. That is a great example of the on-going need to assess and monitor compliance and of working together to find solutions. I welcome the scrutiny, and although I hope that it informs on-going work to address the inevitable gaps and shortcomings with regard to the operation of the Equality Act 2010, I believe that there must be an acknowledgement of the complexities of some aspects of embedding equalities in compliance, but those should not be insurmountable.

I commend the huge level of commitment that is already evident across public services. I acknowledge that this is a continuous and often complex process, and I will certainly do all that I can to support that work.

The Leverhulme research centre for forensic science at the University of Dundee works with justice partners to provide a range of forensic services in Scotland, with work on-going to establish a national drug-checking service and an institute for innovation in forensic science for Scotland as part of the Tay cities region deal. I understand that staff, both externally grant funded and fully tenure-funded by the Scottish Funding Council, are at risk of redundancy, which would be a significant blow to the future provision of forensic services in Scotland.

I welcome the minister’s response so far, but can he provide any further reassurance specifically on the future of the centre, given its importance to the delivery of justice in Scotland and its potentially critical role—through drug testing—in the efforts to reduce drug deaths?