Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That point about going back to people to show that their information was valuable is very important. That will make them feel willing to open up again. I welcome your recognition that a lot of change is needed. I saw what happened with vaccination in gurdwaras and mosques. It was brilliant how we rolled out that process, and we should certainly learn from that.

The point that Clare Gallagher made about the importance of plain English was a valid one.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming along.

I want to follow on from what Clare Gallagher said about marginalised groups. I have participated in many round-table discussions with many members of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and have asked them whether the fact that they always feel that they are not included is to do with particular policies or decision making.

You mentioned that you go out and talk to more than 600 groups but, somehow, information is not reaching those people on the ground. I understand what you said about there being a trust element—I absolutely agree. I come from one of those communities. There is a feeling of, “Why you want to use our information? If you use it, will something change?” I am fully aware that members of those communities question whether anything will change.

Should we consider changing our tactics a bit, rather than using the same groups? Should we involve wider community groups and perhaps even think about talking to people in more religious settings, where a lot of belief is? My family comes from a Sikh background. Maybe you could go to the gurdwara to speak to people. You could even have a group there—maybe downstairs, not where the main congregation is—through which you could provide information, or you could hold a workshop. Every religious setting, whether it is a mosque, a gurdwara or a synagogue, will have schools associated with it. Is that something that could be considered as a way of getting more information to those people so that they can be more involved in decision making?

The letter fails to mention why the issue was not identified by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Why is that the case?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Of those who responded to the short survey, 59 per cent were not in favour of the proposed reforms. I have also received numerous pieces of correspondence from individuals who feel that their views have not been represented or heard. This committee’s members and, particularly, clerks, have had to make last-ditch attempts to secure witnesses in order to ensure that the scrutiny of the bill is more balanced. They have had to include last-minute private evidence sessions, outwith parliamentary time, to ensure that those who are affected by the bill will be heard from. We have received a large number of additional written submissions in a short period of time and there simply has not been enough time to scrutinise such an important bill.

Cabinet secretary, do you agree that stage 1 has been rushed through and that those who are affected by the bill—as well as the committee members and democracy more generally—would benefit from a more thorough approach and longer timescales for the evidence sessions? Do you believe that it would be beneficial to delay stage 1 of the bill?

Thank you for your response, cabinet secretary. I have two points to make on that. I will go back to your predecessor in a minute but, with regard to what you said about us having had lengthy consultation and about people being heard, I am not the only member of this committee who has been receiving emails about this matter. Why do you think that people are saying that they have not been heard?

My experience is that the process has been very tiring. Last week, three sessions were crammed into one week and, this week, there are two sessions. Cabinet secretary, what would you say to people who are listening to this meeting and feel that they have not been heard? This bill is now at the end of stage 1, so it is going through.

Thank you for that response, cabinet secretary. You mentioned your predecessor, Shirley-Anne Somerville. She announced a delay in June 2019, in order to take account of additional issues that had been raised since the consultation, and sought to build consensus on the way forward. Why did the Scottish Government only agree to hold meetings with those who oppose the bill between January and March 2022, when, arguably, it was too late to influence policy?

In addition, what have you taken forward in response to points or concerns that were raised about that section of the bill?

I have another question—

I am just looking to find out whether the concerns that were raised at that time by those people and organisations have been addressed in the bill. It is good that the cabinet secretary mentioned age and a few other concerns, but there are many other concerns that people have raised. Have those concerns been addressed in the bill?

Thank you.

I have previously asked how section 22 interferes with freedom of religion—for instance, where it goes against a woman’s religious practices to be touched by a man. I have given the example of a woman who goes into a doctor’s surgery for a smear test. You can ask for a female doctor in the practice—that is quite normal; my mother does that, as do a lot of my relatives and friends. Given that an individual with a GRC does not have to disclose it, there is the possibility that a woman could end up being seen by a biological male.

I have been made aware of that issue. People have concerns about the existing legislation, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 means that the issue might become more widespread. Were you aware of the issue before the bill was introduced? How will you seek to address it? It is important to balance trans rights and religious rights, whether we are talking about single-sex spaces or single-sex services, especially when they are required by people with a religious background.