Seòmar agus comataidhean

In your letter, you say that ring-fenced funding should be available for single-sex and gender-based service providers. Although it was determined that that was outwith the scope of the bill, do you think that it would be helpful to amend the bill so that the Scottish Government would at least review the impact of the legislation on funding for single-sex services, and set out any further steps that it considers would be necessary following such a review?

Thank you for emphasising how important it is to collect and review data. That is one of the main aspects that I have taken forward, so I thank you for that.

Good evening, Victor. Due to time constraints, the committee has not been able to hear from many groups that wanted to give evidence to us, including survivors of domestic violence and abuse. Why did you think that it was important that we hear from you a second time? What new evidence do you bring with you to the committee today?

Thank you, Reem. To follow on from that, I have another question. Since you published your letter to the UK Government, several parties have reached out to speak with you to gain a deeper understanding of your intervention. At a meeting that I attended, you mentioned briefly that, in Belgium, a safeguarding mechanism to reject applications is legislated for under public order measures. Could you talk about that in further detail with the committee today and outline any other international examples of safeguards that have been used to make the process more robust in the face of bad-faith actors?

Thank you all for your opening statements and the briefings that you have provided, and a special thank you to Richy Edwards for sharing his story.

Nick Bland mentioned—this is also in our briefing—that the expert advisory group included a diverse group of individuals from a range of faith and belief organisations and communities, and included mental health and legal professionals. Can you tell the committee whether you felt that there were any gaps in expertise in the group? Were there any areas of conflict or disagreement? If so, what were they, and how did you reach a consensus?

Thank you. You said that sometimes there can be difficult conversations with certain religious groups. We heard concerns throughout the previous evidence session that the ban would restrict religious freedoms. I will just tack on a little bit to that.

You have mentioned many organisations; they are all organisations that are very worthy and do a great job, but I did not hear you mention any of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian faith organisations. What was it like for you to reach out to them? What I am trying to get at here is what Richy Edwards said earlier. It is not about punishing people; we need to educate people. I know, coming from a Sikh background, that in such faith groups, much education is needed so that people can start accepting that this is normality, that these people are around and we all live together and that is the way that it should be. It is about educating people a little bit more, so you need to reach into the faith groups to educate them. Have they allowed your voice to be heard in those faith groups?

Thank you for your presentation, Sandra. Like my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy, I did not know much about Makaton, so it was really useful to hear about that and about the great work that Margaret Walker has done.

Our briefing for the meeting highlights a

“lack of a routine procedure for identifying individuals with a learning disability”

and a lack of intersectional data. If there was more in-depth data collection about different types of physical and learning disabilities, would that help to identify where Makaton would be most useful and how best it could be delivered in certain services? Which services should it be used in?

I look forward to the education part when the bill is introduced. There is no use in listening to people’s lived experiences and punishing those who have done wrong if we cannot also educate people, because education is very important. I know that you mentioned that, but it is very important.

Thank you.

I had a catch-up call from Ian Duddy, as I am sure my colleagues did. One of the questions that he asked was what the top priorities are in our constituencies and regions. That is important. I do not know how many MSPs the commission has reached out to—perhaps it was just committee members—but all MSPs represent a constituency or region, so it might be good to reach out to them to see what their top concerns are. We are on the ground and we listen to people. Obviously, you mentioned the cost of living, but there are many other areas, so that might be a good idea.

Two weeks ago, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, raised a number of concerns about the Scottish Government’s proposed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. As you will be aware, Ms Alsalem raised concerns that the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms could

“open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it.”

and that

“This presents potential risks to the safety of women in all their diversity”.

Does the SHRC have any comments to make on that intervention by the United Nations, and do witnesses agree with Reem Alsalem that the bill should be postponed so that such concerns can be properly addressed?