Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)10 March 2021
I thank Pauline McNeill for that and I thank you, Presiding Officer, for facilitating that intervention.
On the reason why we should not include a sex aggravator now, I note that Rhoda Grant, who might take part in the stage 3 proceedings later on, suggested that we should include it now and then remove it later if the working group says that it should not be in the legislation. However, a concern is held by Scottish Women’s Aid and many others that a sex aggravator, which could apply to men as much as it would apply to women, could do harm. If the suggestion is that we should include it, allow it to do harm to women and then remove it because the expert working group has said, “Yup—it has done harm”, I would ask how many women would be harmed in that process. To me, that seems the wrong way to go about it.
Forgive me—I did not understand Pauline McNeill’s question about what would be a crime, but I am happy to take that away and perhaps address it in writing to her.