Chamber and committees

Thank you for your patience with my IT. I wanted to come back in on two points. First, on the issue that we have, while I appreciate the—[Inaudible.]—to move emphasis and resources because of the pandemic. I note that in a previous response—[Inaudible.]—rather than punishing the Scottish Government for doing so?

I have certainly noticed some difficulties in a Scottish context to do with the hybrid nature of social security at this point. Is the DWP also struggling with the hybrid nature of social security? Do you think that there will be a need to increase devolved powers in the future, to remedy some of the issues that we have covered this morning?

I was initially going to direct my question to Eilidh Dickson, but she has covered the issue already, so I will direct it to Marsha Scott and see whether Eilidh Dickson wants to come in afterwards.

I note from the statistics in our papers that, during the time period stated, disabled women were almost twice as likely to have experienced sexual assault compared with non-disabled women, and that, globally, 90 per cent of women with learning disabilities have been subjected to sexual abuse. In previous evidence sessions, the committee has heard how much more likely it is that refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those with no recourse to public funds, will experience sexual assault and violence.

What is lacking in the support or the policy that is aimed at preventing or reducing the high levels of sexual assault experienced by women with intersecting characteristics?

I mean in terms of initially coming forward and reporting.

This question is for Marsha Scott. I am interested in the approach of front-line services to advising survivors on access to justice. My personal experience is that, often, organisations have to give the advice that people need to be careful about coming forward because of how common further traumatic experience is. The alternative seems to be feeling as though you are using survivors as battering rams against barriers in justice. Where does the balance need to be in terms of funding one-to-one support services and funding projects that are aimed at prevention or evidence gathering for policy changes? What needs to change in order for specialist services to feel more confident when their service users want to take the legal route?

I will do them one after the other.

I will direct this first question to Mariam Ahmed. We heard a lot from the previous panel about intersectionality in relation to BAME women and disabled women being more at risk, and we know that parents and transgender males are more likely to experience sexual assault. How important is intersectionality as a consideration in addressing misogyny and sexual crimes? How closely linked are misogyny and other prejudices?

Yes, thank you so much, Mariam. That was great.

I will move on to prevention now, and this question is aimed at Carolyn Fox MacKay. I notice in the Girlguiding Scotland written response that

“37 per cent of girls aged 13-25 said that they knew another girl their age who had experienced rape or sexual assault.”

To me, that is already unacceptably high, but it still seems low given how large we know the issue to be. Whether knowingly or not, everyone probably knows someone who has experienced rape or sexual assault. Do you feel that lack of awareness of what constitutes sexual assault or what constitutes consent, as well as unwillingness to call rape and sexual assault what they, is suppressing that figure and playing a part in making the number seem smaller, particularly for those of a young age who are pressured to engage in sexual relationships? How important for prevention work is it to overcome that suppression?

I have one more question, which is for Hassan Darasi. In the previous session, we spoke a lot about the effects of NRPF on women in particular. Are other groups of people, in particular those who share protected characteristics, disproportionately impacted by the policy?

Good morning, everyone. My question is for Lidia Dancu; it is an extension of what she said earlier.

We know that migrant women are much more likely to be subject to domestic abuse, yet the NRPF policy prevents them from accessing support services. Given the high levels of destitution among those women, do you agree that supporting them needs to be the priority in ending destitution? In your view, who is best placed to provide that support? When someone has NRPF status, does that make them even more vulnerable to further abuse?