Seòmar agus comataidhean

Right, I thought that.

Thank you for that. I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in.

I have a wee supplementary question on that. In a previous evidence session, Susan McKellar spoke about the Scottish Women’s Convention being involved in budget talks with the finance minister. She revealed that women’s organisations had asked to be involved in more depth but were told “no” because of the constraints around the budget timetable. I know that you have talked about the gender stuff, but are you satisfied that women were heard and included in the budget-setting process?

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.

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?

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, Victor. To add to that question, I highlight that the Muslim Council of Scotland has written a letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, in which it states:

“For Muslims, where protected single sex spaces are a religious requirement for ablution and prayer and for access to a range of services and leisure opportunities, this proposed legislation risks undermining a range of their human rights, by opening access to legal masqueraders.”

At the same time, the Scottish Association of Mosques wrote to the cabinet secretary, stating:

“This Bill would potentially give access to female only spaces and services, including critical safe spaces for girls under 16, to men who have self-declared their gender, including at places where women and girls are most vulnerable. This creates a clear safeguarding issue.”

Those organisations represent thousands of Muslims in Scotland. In your opinion, are they wrong to hold those concerns? Could you please tell the committee what analysis you have undertaken of the impact of the bill on women of faith and their access to and/or self-exclusion from single-sex services and spaces?

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 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?