Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much. That covers my questions, convener.

Trishna Singh, did you want to come in?

I commend the witnesses for their the outstanding contributions this morning. The evidence session has been quite enlightening.

I want to go back to the issue of education, training and employment. You have made it quite clear that there is definitely a need to support women from ethnic minorities in building their confidence back after the pandemic. What do we need to do in the short and medium term to make that a reality? From what I am hearing today, it is quite obvious that we are failing women from that section of society.

There are many obstacles and barriers—indeed, you have talked about them already and we are aware of them from evidence that we have previously taken—but there has to be a way back for all communities. With regard to your community—the ethnic minority community—who are disadvantaged and are not progressing to what is required, what lessons can be learned to ensure that we actually go forward, not back? What I am hearing is that we are taking a backward step, confidence has been lost and individuals do not feel that they are worthy and are not able to progress into management roles or get opportunities. Perhaps we need a sea change and should try to make that happen.

Perhaps we can hear from Joy Lewis first, as she has vast experience of the sector, and then Mariam Ahmed. If others want to respond, I will be happy to hear from them.

Thank you very much indeed for that good and in-depth answer. Mariam, do you wish to respond?

I think that Farah Farzana wanted to come in, too.

The Parliament has already made a decision on the matter. It was not a unanimous decision but a majority decision that there would be no voter ID. We should close the petition, because the Scottish Government has made it abundantly clear that it will not introduce voter ID. However, in closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, it would be important for us to write to the Government about the possibility of confusion occurring if UK and Scottish elections took place on the same day. That is unlikely but, in the event that it happened, it would be useful to get a view on it. However, the decision has been made and voter ID will not be introduced, so we can close the petition.

You talk about the miscarriage of justice, and I think that many people would identify that as the core issue. However, many would also identify the fact that, in those days gone by, the state and the church were very male dominated and women were persecuted.

There is no question about that, and you have given evidence today about the torture and interrogation that those women went through. Whether or not it was an inquisition, that type of structure—which involved the persecution of women, primarily by men, in communities—was in place in those times gone by. It is important that we identify that, because that seems to have been one of the main processes at work. Those women were disadvantaged and vulnerable, and the male-dominated state had control over their existence and whether they continued to have a life after they were put into that situation.

I agree. We need to get that clarity, so that we understand the implications. We already had some of that from the Scottish Government, in what it is suggesting. The petitioner and his organisation also need to think about the way forward and how what they are calling for could be used. I would support trying to see whether that could be achieved.

I concur with Ruth Maguire’s comments; there is no doubt that there is an impact on mental health. In situations in which there is domestic abuse, it is important that that is recognised.

Only yesterday, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee held a round-table event on a very similar topic involving access to support for families and young people. It would be useful for us to take on board and think about what came out of that evidence session. I would be very keen to continue the petition in order to see what more information we can glean on the issue, and we can analyse that at a later stage.

You have identified many of the issues. The requirement has been controversial for some time. There was a delay initially when the Government set out on the process, and there was a lot of anxiety before the requirement came into force. However, I think that we now understand where we are with the process. A fund has been set up and the communication has improved. There is now a route for individuals who may be vulnerable.

The petition calls for an exemption for small houses, but the Government has made it clear that it does not intend to introduce that and that it is not going to happen. Because of that, and given what has happened with the policies and practices that have been put in place, I am not clear that we can take the petition any further. I suggest that we close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders because I do not think that anything else can be achieved, given the timescale.