What are the witnesses’ views on the Scottish Funding Council’s new funding distribution model, and the extent to which it provides colleges with more flexibility and opportunity to decide how best to respond to local, regional and national needs?

I have a question on the new funding model, so I will come back to that later.

You have just touched on what I was going to ask about. In the joint article in the Criminal Law Review, you noted that changing the majority to two thirds might create

“an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction.”

Will you expand on that a wee bit?

This certainly is confusing. We have majority, supermajority, simple majority and unanimity systems. From what you have said, I think that you are in favour of unanimity—no?

But going for 10 out of 12.

So, it is all about striving for unanimity, but 10 out of 12 would be fine.

Okay. I have just one wee quick question. The convener has asked about not proven as a compromise verdict, and you have answered that point, but my question is about changing to a two-thirds majority. The Crown Office has suggested introducing a system for retrials, should the two-thirds majority be missed—if, for instance, there is agreement among seven out of the 12 jurors. Do you think that that should be incorporated into the bill?

Perhaps there needs to be a bit more conversation about the issue, then. I have heard comments about being pushed towards a verdict and juries almost always getting a verdict, but we are still talking about four out of 12 jurors saying that the person is innocent if you are going for a guilty verdict and a conviction.

Or striving to reach it.

There is no spare time and my speech is full of points that I want to make—sorry.

If offenders believe that the police do not have the resources to monitor or pursue them, that will not help women. If offenders think that the punishments for crimes are fairly soft, that will not help women. What will help women is making sure that they are supported on the road to justice. As it stands, it often feels to victims and survivors as if the system is working against them. Women feel that the system lets violent men continue to harass them in a number of ways. They feel that the court process and its aftermath can be exploited by violent and sexual offenders.

I am sure that every single MSP will be able to cite a constituent who has contacted them because a violent man will not leave them or their family alone. I will raise the experience of one family I have been working with since I was elected. As per their wishes, I have protected their anonymity. The family have been plagued by a violent man for years. Two years ago, in the chamber debate on the same topic, I spoke about their experiences. To our shame, their troubles are on-going.

From 2005 onwards, the man terrorised multiple families, including three of his own children. He has abused and assaulted mothers, and he has abducted a child. He received no jail time; his punishment was barely a slap on the wrist. The man threw the children along hallways, grabbed them by the throat and hair, and dragged them upstairs by their ears. He was charged with six counts of child abuse but was released on bail. He received non-contact orders but quickly broke them, just as he had broken every non-contact order that had been placed on him for more than 15 years. The family was forced to flee their home.

Finally, it seemed that the woman and her family might be free of that individual—until she sought a divorce. Not only did this violent man decide to contest the divorce; he now wants access to one of the children. That young child has recovered brilliantly from the hell that she has been put through. Her family say that she thrives in school, where she gets glowing reports. She has little to no memory of this horrible man. However, now he is trying to force himself back into the lives of that child and her mother.

The man is using the court system to try to gain access to the child, forcing the family to relive the traumatic events in order to justify why he should not have any access. That is despite the fact that the man pled guilty to child abuse, and despite the fact that he has been documented as having hit the little girl and her siblings. Why is he allowed to get away with continuing to traumatise the girl, her mother and the family? Why is he not prevented from contesting the divorce in the first place? Why is there not an immediate block on his attempts to see his child? There is no good reason why the man should be allowed to continue harassing the family. He must be forced to leave them alone, to allow them to move on. He should not have the right to continue dragging them back to relive what he did.

The Government may argue that everyone has rights and that legal processes must be respected. However, until it steps in to make changes that stop violent men such as this from continuing to abuse women, what will happen? The same crimes, the same violence and the same abuse will happen to women year after year. We can keep coming to the Parliament and talking about the issue—and that is welcome—but, at some stage, reality needs to dawn on the Parliament that we need to act. It is 16 days of action not talking that we need.

Anyone committing violence against women needs to be apprehended, brought to justice and punished. They need to be stopped in their tracks, not allowed to keep attacking, abusing and traumatising women. Only then will we see the change in society that women deserve.