Chamber and committees

Would it be possible for the committee to have a copy of that pack so that we have a better understanding of the process that complainers have to go through at the moment?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. In what ways has the act helped to ensure effective work to tackle child poverty across all policy areas within the Scottish Government? Have any particular policy areas been more challenging to include in the cross-government approach?

Can you point to any particular policy areas that have been challenging?

I thank the minister for bringing the motion to the chamber, as we mark the 16 days of activism, and for the cross-party nature of the debate. The 16 days of activism developed from the international day for the elimination of violence against women, which we mark on 25 November. It was established in 1981 by Latin American and Caribbean feminists and then adopted by the UN.

Despite the 16 days of activism having been marked since 1999, we all know that a huge amount still remains to be done. I welcome the focus of the motion, which highlights the importance of education and of listening to younger people on how we can address women’s inequality. Ninety-three per cent of young people who were recently consulted by the Scottish Youth Parliament agreed that many girls and women feel unsafe in public spaces.

We know that violence against women is endemic across the world, and I welcome what the minister has said about the Scottish Government’s international work. However, we also know that, as the minister also said, we have very high levels of violence against women and girls in Scotland. As Tess White said, that is an outrage. The only way that will change is if we change our culture, and young people need to be central to that.

In 2021, my colleague Pauline McNeill and I launched Scottish Labour’s consultation on ending violence against women and girls to develop our policies in the area. One of the key issues that emerged during that consultation was the significant challenge of sexism and misogyny in schools, the need for a cross-campus strategy to deal with sexism and misogyny, and the rising levels of violence against pupils and staff in schools, particularly girls and women staff. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her support and for the work that she is doing on tackling sexism and misogyny in schools and in developing our policies. I thank everyone—in particular, all the young people—who has attended events and contributed to the discussion that my party is having.

We all need to support initiatives to combat sexism in schools, including the mentoring projects and the variety of other initiatives that are taking place across Scotland. However, we must be clear that what we are currently doing is inadequate and that far more needs to be done.

We have been joined this week in the Parliament by Scottish Women’s Aid, which has a stall in the garden lobby. SWA staff have been sharing with MSPs not only the experiences of the women who use their services but the importance of listening to children and young people who are affected by abuse. Women might be able to separate from their abusers, but the abuse can continue through child contact. Again, we need to listen to women and children as we develop our policies in all areas.

Research from Engender shows that 43 per cent of girls and women in Scotland do not feel safe outside alone. The Scottish Government’s research, which was published last year, found that women feel more comfortable when train station ticket offices are open and staffed. However, the recent announcement of a reduction in hours at ScotRail ticket offices across Scotland is disappointing and another example of how we need to prioritise the needs of girls and women in all our policies. I look forward to working alongside my colleague Claire Baker, who has been appointed as Labour’s new transport spokesperson, and with colleagues from any party across the chamber with a desire to assist in rolling back cuts in ticket offices and in ensuring safe staffing levels in all public spaces where people need to use public transport.

The voice of children and young people is vital in all areas of policy. The Scottish Government and MSPs must ensure that the

“youth voice is central to action to address gender-based violence”,

as the motion sets out. I very much hope that we continue to work cross party to ensure that that happens and that we accept that, sometimes, that will have to mean changes in the way we do politics and the policies that we adopt.

Yes. I was at that meeting.

That suggests that the changes would not make a significant difference. However, we simply do not know because we do not, because of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, have evidence. Is that correct? We are being asked to proceed on the basis of a guess rather than on the basis of evidence.

Yes, that is right.

We covered all this at stage 1.

Do you agree that the problem that parliamentarians have in this area is the lack of evidence? Due to the Contempt of Court Act 1981, we do not really have any jury research in Scotland—we do not know what the split in juries is. It might be that the changes to jury size and majority would make very little difference to conviction rates, or they could make a considerable difference in specific cases.

I do not necessarily expect you to know the answer to this question, but it would be really useful if you could provide any information. With regard to other jurisdictions, are you aware of any evidence on jury splits where there is a not guilty outcome? In cases in which a unanimous decision is required but the jury cannot reach that or a supermajority, there will be a split. It might be that the split is such that there is a majority in favour of conviction but that, because of the system, that does not lead to a conviction. I appreciate that this is not your day job and that you would not necessarily look at this, but have you been able to get information on jury splits when you have been considering the issue? I suspect that the information might not be available.

That is the question, really—whether we should take the decision before we have more evidence.