Chamber and committees

I am pleased to be speaking in this important debate to highlight the key findings in the report of the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls and on the first statement on gender equality coherence.

The statement is vital in tracking the progress of gender equality in public and private life. It is packed full of interesting and sometimes surprising statistics—there are too many to highlight during a short speech, but I will try to sift out some of them.

The SNP has a proud record of fighting for gender equality while in government, and will leave no stone unturned in its work towards equality. From action on equal pay, support for women returning to the workplace and the first gender-balanced Cabinet in the UK, to taking action to end period poverty, we have worked hard to tear down barriers.

However, make no mistake: despite record investment on challenging inequality and norms, there is still a great deal of work to be done, not least in keeping women and girls safe. I am convener of the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children, which constantly challenges the underpinning issue that affects the safety of women and girls in society—the behaviour of men. Domestic violence is still a scourge in our society.

The equally safe strategy strives to combat all forms of violence against women and girls, including delivering the women’s health plan, which we have been hearing about; investing to tackle domestic violence against women and girls and survivors of abuse; supporting women to access fair work; and helping to reduce the gender pay gap. We are also supporting schools to equip young people with the skills to counter the impacts of online hate, including misogyny, and we are piloting specialist independent legal advice for complainers in rape and attempted rape cases.

A helpful briefing from the Scottish Women’s Budget Group states:

“While there has been some movement towards embedding intersectional gender budgeting, progress remains far too slow”.

In short, we must do better.

Another overriding issue is the lack of essential data to improve the collection, analysis and use of evidence on gender inequality. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is continuing to work with our stakeholders on that important issue. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I am also pleased that we are currently legislating to introduce domestic homicide and suicide reviews, to abolish the not proven verdict, and to establish a sexual offences court and a victims and witnesses commissioner to improve women’s journey through the justice system.

We know that women’s poverty and child poverty are intrinsically linked and that women experience barriers in the labour market, including discriminatory practices and the gender pay gap. It is critical that we address that if we are to improve the lives of women. To that end, we are investing £522 million in 2025-26 to deliver three benefits to support unpaid carers. The 2023-24 carers census shows that 73 per cent of carers are women, so that investment is crucial. We have been talking about our childcare policy of investing around £1 billion in high-quality funded early learning and childcare every year since 2021. Doing so helps to combat poverty, and I would like to see it go further, too. The child payment and the scrapping of the two-child cap are incredibly important and are measures that are not available in the rest of the UK.

We published the women’s health plan and appointed Scotland’s first women’s health champion, as well as investing more than £17 million to support a sexual assault co-ordination service in every health board. I agree with the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made in her earlier intervention on intersectionality and access to facilities in general practice. That needs to be addressed.

As a member of the gender-sensitive audit advisory panel, I am pleased that we continue to strive to elect more women, and I am confident in our commitment to improve women’s representation at every level of public and private life.

This statement shines a light on not just what we have achieved but what we have yet to achieve to progress equality in the lives of women and girls, now and for the future.

I thank the cabinet secretary for outlining her vision and priority of lifting children out of poverty. How are UK Government policies actively contributing to the problem? What is the Government’s assessment of the delays to the work of the UK Government’s child poverty task force?

Good morning. I want to ask you some questions on something that we touched on briefly with a previous question from Emma Roddick. What is the Government’s view on the physical attendance requirement in the bill and what would be a valid reason for a member to be absent for 180 days or more? Should there be a definitive list of criteria for that? Some witnesses have suggested that the provision could have a negative impact on diversity for people who are not able to attend the Parliament in person. What your views are on that?

The fundamental question is what a good reason would be. The other thing is that local authorities impose restrictions or a penalty in relation to the number of times that a member does not attend. I am not sure whether that includes remote attendance. [Interruption.] You are telling me that it does, so local authorities are taking that into account.

It comes down to the question of what you deem to be a good reason. My personal thought is that there should be a non-exhaustive list in the bill that would identify things such as physical or mental illness. Anything outwith that could be dealt with separately.

That brings me to the privacy of MSPs’ information at that point. Is there enough in the bill to protect a member’s privacy and confidentiality in relation to the information that is made publicly available, given that that could be very personal information about somebody who is in public life?

In your policy memorandum, which you sent to the committee, you raised a concern about the timing aspect of the appeals process, which should be completed before making an MSP subject to recall on the criminal offence ground, which is different from instances in which an MSP would be removed because of a custodial sentence of six months or more but less than a year. Can you expand on your thoughts on that?

Would that include remand? That is another matter.

I do not think that it is referred to, but someone could be on remand for a good number of months.

I guess that it is also a matter for the member in charge of the bill and the committee.

That is interesting—thank you.