Seòmar agus comataidhean

If the reforms to the 2004 act come into being in the way that is proposed, individuals, including complainers and victims, will be able to self-identify their sex. I believe—and I think that some of the women’s groups are saying—that that could be in conflict with what the proposal for misogyny legislation seeks to do.

We cannot assume that omission is disagreement, so I think that it is important that we go back and ask again.

Sorry—I have one thing to add.

It might be the same point.

Of course. I just wanted to make that general point. I do not know what we can do about that.

I am a bit confused about what the table says about civil recovery. Forgive me if I have not seen the information that it says has been provided—perhaps the clerks can point me to that after the meeting. We know little about how much is recovered or whether it is possible to measure if that amount is sufficient.

We have already stated that we have not had responses to a lot of stuff, but there are so many unanswered questions as to where safe consumption rooms might be, including whether they would be mobile or in communities, and about tolerance zones around them. That seems to be a big omission.

The progress box on “Codes of Practice” is green—it is marked as “Completed”. I do not want to ruin anyone’s happiness, but there has been no response from the Lord President or from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service about complaints and how people might get redress—not in relation to judicial decisions, but in relation to conduct issues. I do not know whether they just did not choose to respond or whether there is any desire to go back to them to follow up on that.

At the beginning of this document, it states that, ordinarily, the Scottish Government would respond to each point. Jamie Greene has already mentioned that the Scottish Prison Service has not responded to some significant items. Apparently, the protocol between the Parliament and the Government is that the Government would normally respond point by point. I do not know how unusual it is, but it feels as though there are quite a lot of big gaps in here.

I have quite a few points to make. Are we working through the document chronologically? Is that the plan?

On page 20, the table says that the Parole Board for Scotland did not respond to our recommendation. Recent data suggests that people who had applied to attend parole hearings had all, I think, been turned down. It would be nice to know what is going on.