Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of questions. The first is for Adam Brown.

At our meeting in August, you indicated that you wanted to provide evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, so it is good to see you here—thank you for coming. I recall that, in that meeting, your colleague DCS Sarah Taylor said that the bill would be “groundbreaking”. She also mentioned that having details in the register such as the perpetrator’s address at the time of the offence would be helpful, especially when the police have to go out looking for the perpetrator. There is a lot of information that you do not have currently, and having such information in the register would help with that issue. Similarly, the Scottish Police Federation signalled that it supports the bill, if it is provided with proper resources.

Domestic abuse costs the public sector billions of pounds each year, and the police have been underfunded by the Scottish Government for years. Therefore, do you agree with the Scottish Police Federation when it says that, with proper resources, the bill could work? Given your expertise, how do you think that we can make the bill work and bring down bureaucracy through amendments at stage 2?

At the meeting that I mentioned, DCS Sarah Taylor said that the bill is “groundbreaking” as it will give you more information about the perpetrator than you currently get. What is your view on that?

Thank you.

I have some questions for the other witnesses—thank you all for responding to the call for views and coming here today. It is interesting to listen to the feedback, as it helps us to make better legislation.

While putting the bill together, I consulted many survivors who believe that the current system is not working and that perpetrators are simply let out with a slap on the wrist and are allowed to reoffend. We know how high reoffending is: the statistics show that it occurs in more than half of reported cases. Domestic abuse cost the public purse £7.5 billion in a three-year period, while the estimated cost of the bill is around £23 million, which is less than 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. Do you not believe that, in the long term, the bill could help to save money? What changes would you like to see made at stage 2?

No, thank you, Wendy. My interest is more specific, so perhaps you could write to the committee and let us know more. It is good that you have information from Scottish Women’s Aid and other stakeholders, but I am particularly interested in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, in which domestic abuse cases are obviously very different, culturally, especially with regard to child contact and the kind of role that child contact centres play. I always say that one size never fits all. It was just to understand whether you went out to organisations such as Sikh Sanjog and Amina—the Muslim Women’s Resource Centre—to see how domestic abuse is talked about by BAME communities and BAME organisations that deal with domestic abuse among those cultures every day.

Thank you very much for that.

Good morning. Thank you, minister, for your opening statement. As you know, children experiencing domestic abuse are already extremely vulnerable. That is why we must ensure that they are kept safe in child contact centres. The regulations that have been laid by the Government would require the Care Inspectorate to report the failure of a child contact services provider to comply with the Equality Act 2010. Are you confident that the proposed regulations address the concerns about child contact centres from families who are affected by domestic abuse?

I have a wee add-on question. You said that you have held consultations and done some work with Scottish Women’s Aid. Have you done any work with other organisations?

Cabinet secretary, the committee has heard from several witnesses who are worried that the bill is a temporary and short-term solution that does not address the underlying issue of legislation being compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Alongside others, Professor Angela O’Hagan from the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee that we are

“looking at yet another add-on, with another legislative instrument added as a sticking plaster to patch up legislation whose proposals have not been well defined in the first instance.”

Similarly, Fraser Sutherland from the Humanist Society Scotland said:

“the bill documentation and the pre-bill consultation clearly show that the Government does not fully understand what is happening.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 48, 30.]

We are here to make good legislation, but it has been clearly stated in evidence that the bill is simply not good enough and is another sheer example of a “sticking plaster” approach to fixing bad legislation. How do you respond to that?

Thank you for that clarity. When the gates are opened, precedents are set, and people start looking at other subject areas. It is great to hear from you today that this is about the provisions of this bill only, and that it will not set precedents in other areas.

There has been some concern about schools having to decide whether a child is capable of forming a view about religious education and/or observation. I asked one of the previous panels about that, when I raised the fact that children under the age of 18 cannot serve as jurors or get credit cards—and there are many other things they cannot do. With that in mind, how do you think that teachers will be able to determine that a child is mature enough to make a decision about their education and whether their parents are right to withdraw them from religious education or observance? Is it a decision that teachers should be making? Are you able to explain the Scottish Government’s position on the approach that will be taken through the bill?

I understand that you have answered similar questions from Maggie Chapman and Tess White, but I think that teachers already have a lot to deal with right now without being put in such a position. How are you going to create balance so that teachers can understand what a child is capable of?

In another evidence session, I gave an example of two children from one family, where the teacher might think that one child was capable of making a decision but the other was not. How do you balance the rights of those children?