Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an important question. Part of the Deputy First Minister’s Covid recovery work is focused on listening to the experiences of those communities that have been most impacted. The DFM has undertaken a number of engagements, listening to those with lived experience to find out what their priorities are to build a Covid recovery strategy. Again, I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on that work, if that would be helpful.

I hope that, when we take forward the bill, we can try to find as many areas of consensus as possible and that it can be done in a respectful environment—in particular, when we discuss the issues in more detail in Parliament.

You might be aware that the first consultation showed that 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of the reform. The second consultation sought views on the draft bill itself, so its approach was qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, it asked whether the minimum age should be reduced to 16, and it included other specific questions on the bill.

Because of the volume of responses—there were 17,000—an in-depth analysis of them was not possible. That is why only the organisational responses were published; it would have taken an inordinate amount of officials’ time to extrapolate all the detail from 17,000 responses. The same approach was taken in the first consultation on the issue and with the equal marriage legislation. It is important to note that there has been an independent analysis of the consultation, which has given a clear summary of views on key aspects of reform such as the minimum age.

Karen Adam has made important points. In the second consultation, we tried to put out information and to reassure people. There is no conflict between the proposed legislation and the rights of women and girls. The Scottish Government has brought forward a huge amount of work on protecting women and girls. That work continues with the misogyny working group. The equally safe strategy, which we might touch on today, is hugely important. Through the work on the bill, we are trying to make the lives of a small number of people that bit easier by changing the process by which someone can obtain a gender recognition certificate.

Karen Adam made the point that some of the debate seems to indicate a desire to move away from the ability to obtain a gender recognition certificate in any way. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we can focus the debate on making the process—which already exists—easier and on removing the difficulties that make the lives of a small number of people very difficult. It is about making the process easier for those who are affected. As we take forward the proposals, we will ensure that they in no way impact on the rights of women and girls.

We have been in discussion with the UK Government on that matter. As the committee is probably aware, the UK Government has said that it is looking to legislate in the area. We have had communications with it to try to get clarity on the scope of that. We have said all along that, if the scope does not go as far as we want it to, we will look to legislate. There are some complexities in relation to devolved and reserved issues, which we would need to work through. However, we have been pretty clear.

I caught the tail end of the earlier evidence session—very powerful testimony and evidence were given. We need to find out from the UK Government what its intentions are in more detail. However, as we have said, it still stands that, if the UK Government either will not legislate or will not go as far as we want to, we will bring forward our own legislation.

We need to reflect on that. I am not in a position to answer at the moment. I would want to come back to the committee to bring more details on those questions, if that is okay.

The work of third sector organisations in supporting people who have no recourse to public funds is vital. The UK Government has strict rules on those who have no recourse to public funds, so we have to proceed with caution because, ultimately, at the extreme end of things, we could jeopardise someone’s status as having leave to remain if they were to receive funds that the UK Government deemed they should not receive. We have to be extremely careful in that area, which is why funding third sector organisations is the best way of supporting individuals and families who need support.

Many of the people who have come to Scotland through the refugee or asylum process are hugely skilled and valued members of our communities. The sooner they are able to use those skills and work, the better it will be for our communities and our society at large.

Unfortunately, some of the issues remain reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we continue to have dialogue in order to work through some of the remaining barriers for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

The second new Scots refugee integration strategy runs until December next year, and partners have begun discussions on the arrangements to develop the third strategy with the aim of publishing that in 2023. We want the strategy to be shaped by refugees and people with experience of asylum as well as those with expertise in supporting them. During the past few weeks, I have met people who have settled here and have heard their voices directly on some of the issues that remain—some of which are reserved and some of which are devolved—which we need to work through.

The member also made reference to the work with COSLA on the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, which was published in March. That looks at improving and strengthening the support and provision for people who have no recourse to public funds. The strategy has been informed by powerful testimony from people with lived experience of suffering destitution. It sets out the initial actions to deliver essential needs, to enable access to specialist advice and advocacy and to make sure that people can pursue their ambitions and be active members of our communities. That is very pertinent to the work that we are doing to make sure that Scotland plays its part in supporting those who have come from Afghanistan in terrible circumstances, who are very vulnerable indeed.

Afghan families are already being welcomed into Scottish communities through the Afghan locally employed staff relocation scheme and, so far, 22 local authorities have expressed a keenness to support the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We have been pushing the UK Government for more information on that. Last week, Angus Robertson and I had a meeting with UK ministers to consider the details, including funding, to ensure that local authorities have the information that they need. There are some practical issues relating to access to interpreters and ensuring that people who first go to hotels are resettled as quickly as possible.

We have a long history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths, including those who are seeking asylum and refuge from war and terror elsewhere. It is important that we continue to play our part.

It goes without saying that Scotland is a diverse and multicultural society, that that diversity strengthens us as a nation and that we are better for it. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for hatred, bigotry or prejudice, and we absolutely condemn anti-Catholic prejudice and anti-Irish racism.

Fulton MacGregor has made a good point about tackling sectarianism in our schools. Third sector organisations in particular are doing a lot of good work in our schools to try to tackle those issues. They are not easy to tackle—some of them are deep rooted and generational—but we need to do absolutely everything that we can to tackle them, and the Government is determined to do so.

Mark Griffin is right that we need a starting point of better data on the private rented sector to be able to deliver an effective system of rent controls. We will set out our intentions about how we will do that by the end of this year. That work will be taken forward in tandem with the new rented sector strategy, with both elements being consulted on in early 2022.

There are various options to consider for how that data is gathered. It is a big piece of work and it is not easy. I am not sure that we can necessarily rely on the current sources of data that are available. Data is a key priority in order to have an effective system of rent controls, and officials are working very hard on that. Again, I am happy to provide the committee with a more detailed answer as a follow-up to this evidence session.

Mark Griffin is absolutely right. It is probably more complex than simply a ratio of income and cost. Work is being done to try and get an agreed definition of affordability across the system in order to give it more sophistication than it currently has. Again, I am happy to furnish the committee with more details as that work progresses. We want to get an agreed position across all the registered social landlords and local authorities—it is work in progress.