To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on Police Scotland of the budget 2026-27 allocation being £50 million less than the amount requested by the Chief Constable. (S6T-02951)

The cabinet secretary strangely failed to mention one implication of the budget being £50 million less than requested, which is that, at the Scottish National Party’s own conference, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation flagged the fact that terminally ill police officers who are off work because they have been injured on duty will be forced on to half pay, or even no pay, and that that is “because of this budget”.

Is the cabinet secretary concerned that terminally ill officers might be losing money as a direct result of this Government’s cuts, and what does she intend to do about that?

Amendment 207 says that the Scottish ministers must fully fund the new body. Can the member indicate how much that might end up costing?

The cabinet secretary trumpets the funding and says that it will deliver community outcomes, but there are about 1,000 fewer police officers in Scotland than there were five years ago. How will the funding that the cabinet secretary has announced directly increase officer numbers by 1,000—or is she happy to leave the figure as it is?

I thank the cabinet secretary for that, but, in fact, Scottish Opera has suffered a 66 per cent real-terms cut to its grants since 2007-08, and its general director has warned that

“The current position is unsustainable”

and that it risks losing the talent that underpins Scottish Opera’s international reputation.

How will what is a standstill budget in 2026-27 impact the unsustainable position highlighted in that warning? Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Government’s funding decisions are directly threatening jobs and Scotland’s cultural standing?

Unsustainable!

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the long-term sustainability of Scottish Opera. (S6O-05613)

I support this SSI, which adds the characteristic of sex as a protected characteristic to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, because women and girls deserve protection in law and we must seek to address prejudice based on sex, exactly as I, Adam Tomkins, Johann Lamont, Jenny Marra, Pauline McNeill and so many others argued in the chamber when the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was going through Parliament.

At that time, the Government rejected our arguments and whipped its MSPs on the promise of a stand-alone, dedicated misogyny law that would be specifically designed to address the misogynistic abuse, harassment and hostility that women and girls experience daily. I recall my, and many colleagues’, doubts that that law would be delivered—and, sure enough, last summer, the Government abandoned its promise of a misogyny law.

Now the Government offers these regulations, which insert the characteristic of sex into the existing hate crime framework. That change goes some way to providing additional protection, and for that reason, I support it. However, we should be under no illusion—it is not the comprehensive response that Baroness Kennedy recommended and it is not what women and girls were promised. Indeed, many have made it clear that the hate crime model is ill suited to tackling the wider forms of misogynistic behaviour that women experience: behaviour that may not present as overt hatred but which is nevertheless vicious, harmful and pervasive. Not only that, but these protections will not even come in until April 2027, despite the Government having had more than a year to work out how to bring them in.

I will vote for the SSI, but I recognise that it is not the full answer. It is not the legislation that women and girls were promised, and today must not be the end of the matter. Women and girls deserve to be protected by a justice system that fully recognises the scale and nature of misogynistic behaviour.

The previous Government made promises of protection; this Government has failed to deliver. Today, we go a small part of the way to remedying that, but I urge, in the strongest possible terms, any MSPs who return to this place in May to urgently take forward the comprehensive misogyny legislation that Baroness Kennedy demanded, that this Government promised and that women and girls deserve.

22:12

He has. I will take Mr Ross back to amendment 138. It occurs to me that amendment 138 requires that, to be eligible for assisted death, someone would have to have access to

“a fully costed palliative care pathway”.

Does he not think that that risks making eligibility dependent on the service provision rather than on the person’s illness?

I have been listening carefully, and I wonder whether Stephen Kerr might respond to the point that I think that Emma Roddick was making. Sue Webber’s amendments in the group say specifically “are not pregnant”, but Stephen Kerr has confined himself to talking about 24 weeks as a crucial part. He did not answer the challenge that Emma Roddick posed. I wonder whether he might do so now.