:I am very grateful.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have said that the regulations are about protecting women and girls in law. The policy note suggests that they will implement the first two recommendations in Baroness Kennedy’s report, but they will not, because Baroness Kennedy specifically recommended, for example, the creation of a new statutory misogyny aggravation that would operate outside the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.

You referred to the consultation. Many respondents to the consultation—which, interestingly, resulted in no amendments being made to what is proposed—said that the mechanism was “ill-suited” to dealing with the misogynistically motivated crime that women and girls face.

Do you accept that the proposed mechanism is a poor second to the full misogyny act that women were promised? What else will be lost as a result of that mechanism being used, rather than a full misogyny act being introduced?

:I certainly recognise that it is a complex area, but I have argued that the Government prioritises what it chooses to prioritise and makes time for what it thinks it should do.

On the point about delay, events will not become aggravators until after 5 April 2027, which is more than a year away. On 24 September last year, the cabinet secretary said to the committee:

“I am not having a gap in the law for women.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 September 2025; c 33.]

However, it has been acknowledged that there is a gap, which is why we are considering the SSI today.

We know that what is proposed is a different concept from what Baroness Kennedy envisaged—the cabinet secretary has acknowledged that the SSI will not go the whole way in addressing what Baroness Kennedy has said—so it will not fill the gap. That gap will now remain for more than a year. Given that the 2021 act has now been in place for several years, what on earth is delaying the protection of women and girls for another 14 months?

:How does that work on a practical level? People will be watching this and wondering whether the prison officers open the gates to let someone out and say, “There is your ticket, now off you go and head back to your home country. You will do that, won’t you?” I think that people would be keen for more reassurance that there is an actual managed process, from the gate being opened to the person landing in their home jurisdiction.

:I turn to my second question. I get why this change is being proposed. However, in listening to you, cabinet secretary, I heard that, potentially, a foreign criminal serves 15 per cent of their sentence and then says, “I will go and I promise that I will reside permanently in my home jurisdiction,” so they become eligible and start going through the process. Is there not a risk that we are effectively saying to people that, if they come to Scotland and commit a crime, they will serve 15 per cent of their sentence and then go home? Does that not end up looking like soft-touch justice that makes Scotland an attractive place for people to come and commit a crime?

:Yes, please. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned in response to Pauline McNeill that there is a misogyny bill in draft. In order that the next Government can pick up and run with it, is there value in that being published or released in some way, so that stakeholders can comment on it?

Since we are in the debate section of our consideration, the only comment that I have to make is my extreme disappointment that we are at this point, years after women and girls were promised full protection. I recall the powerful and good work done by the likes of Jenny Marra and Johann Lamont—whom the cabinet secretary will remember—in the previous parliamentary session to try to get proper protection for women and girls. Instead, what we have with this SSI is reduced protection, and it is delayed. I am not happy that Baroness Kennedy’s report was published as long ago as 2022, because it is clear that the Government has failed to do the work that would have been required in the interim to get us to a position in which women and girls have full protection. However, I appreciate that what is being proposed might go some of the way, so, for that reason, I will support the SSI.

I think that the cabinet secretary wants to intervene.

:Right. I accept that. I wonder whether information on the further work that has been undertaken since the consultation closed, which presumably has been on-going for the past year or so, might be released.

This is my final point, convener. What we have here in the SSI goes some of the way, so I will support it. What I, certainly, and perhaps my committee colleagues would be keen to see is the new Government, however it is constituted, picking up and running with this issue. I make that point in the strongest possible terms on my own behalf—I do not speak for anyone else—because the Government has failed to protect women and girls. I know that the cabinet secretary will do all that she can to protect them and I hope that she will do whatever she can to help the next Government to take that forward.

:This point might be slightly tangential, but I think that the cabinet secretary will understand why I am raising it. The cabinet secretary is content to consent to a new clause after clause 84 that concerns new offences of possession and publication of pornographic images that depict acts of strangulation or suffocation. I agree and am perfectly comfortable with those provisions.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of Fiona Drouet’s petition on non-fatal strangulation and of what she and many others want to happen in that regard. The petition concerns an offence of non-fatal strangulation, not the possession and publication of such images. However, given that I have this opportunity to question the cabinet secretary, what is her view on the proposal for such an offence? Were she to be back in the Government in session 7, would she be keen to take the proposal forward?

I will bring in Fulton MacGregor.

I am very grateful to you both. As colleagues have no further questions, that concludes your evidence for this morning. Thank you for your time.

11:01

Meeting suspended.

11:08

On resuming—