Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have just commented on the volume of responses, rather than the quality. My point is that, in that significant volume, which I absolutely do not doubt, nobody at any point thought it that was appropriate to look at the impact on women who have been sexually assaulted—a huge percentage of women, as you will know—or raped, of having fully intact men in their safe spaces. That says to me that something was not right with the process, risk assessment and decision making. Do you accept that or am I missing something? Do you accept that, clearly, something was not quite right with the processes? It is not about volume of responses, it is about quality.

Thank you. The general question—which, in fairness, I do not expect you to be able to answer today—is whether there is a possibility that some of those types of bodies that receive Scottish Government funding get more than 50 per cent of their income stream that way. In fairness to you, I do not expect you to know that data for every single organisation.

Okay, so my next question is where that would be declared by the Scottish Government and/or the civil service as a risk in terms of your decision making. I fully accept that it is a risk for the organisations, because of exactly what you highlighted, but it also represents a risk to both the civil service and the Scottish Government, if a number of bodies are receiving more than 50 per cent of their funding from you. Perhaps the permanent secretary would like to come in and say where in the institutional memory, if you like, that would be declared, understood and assessed.

I was expecting the tradition of the convener going first to be in operation, but okay. We will just go in with the heavy brogues, then.

My question might well be for the cabinet secretary. I am interested in exploring whether any third sector groups obtain more than 50 per cent of their funding from the Scottish Government.

Permanent Secretary, do you have any final comments on that? Were you surprised at my comment?

I feel as though I have taken a great deal of time on this topic, so I want to let other colleagues in. Thank you both.

I have a couple of quick questions off the back of what you have said. You talked about the speed of change, which everyone recognises is accelerating. How well equipped is the civil service, since you joined it, to deal with that speed of change, which ain’t going to stop any time soon, as we all know?

You mentioned earlier, and I read in the stats, that more than 55 per cent of your employees are female, which is great. You also said that there is a very healthy gender balance at all levels. Do you have, or could you supply the committee with, a breakdown at all levels? I am particularly interested in the most senior levels.

I will make one last wee point. A wellbeing economy, which has a gendered lens as a focus, is, of course, a priority of the Scottish Government. I am aware of the time. You may want to give us some more flavour of how you are able to apply that, because it is obviously about so much more than simply the percentage of the gender split. We could start to look at procurement and so on. It depends on time, convener.

I am sorry—I have not been clear. I should have said quangos or third sector groups.

This is my final question. Concern was expressed about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am mindful that that is a contentious policy and I am not trying to make a political point; I am merely using it as an example of what I am driving at. During the bill process, a point was made about the equality impact assessments that were carried out over a six-year period. No cognisance was given to the impact on women and girls who had been sexually assaulted or raped of having men with fully intact genitalia—setting to one side their right to be referred to in line with their chosen gender—in those women’s safe places.

I asked Engender whether it had carried out any assessments. The reply was that it had not and that it would not have carried out the EQIA anyway.

There are ideas about avoiding policy capture, having critical friends and making robust decisions. So, how did we get to a position where nobody thought about that impact on women and girls for six years?