Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the witnesses for coming to speak to us about this very difficult subject. It is important that the committee hears about it. I should have said at the outset that I chair the adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse cross-party group in this Parliament, and Collette Stevenson is also a member of that group. The group has real concerns about some of the stuff that we have been hearing about today. I want to ask about the increase in abuse, particularly during the Covid pandemic, because almost every witness has talked about it. I think that I know the answer to this, but it would be good to get it on the record. Are we talking about a real increase overall—I think that we are—or are we talking about better detection methods, particularly on the part of the police? The police have attended several times to talk to the group about how, over the past few years, they have been able to deploy technology that they would not previously have thought it possible to deploy. Does anyone want to comment on the increase and the scale of such abuse? Are we uncovering it more or has there been an actual increase because of Covid and other factors?

My question follows on from the discussion that we have had. I want to reflect on what David Hamilton said.

For the record, I should declare an interest; this is in my entry in the register of members’ interests. Before I became an MSP, I was a social worker in criminal justice and child protection.

What David Hamilton said has always been the case, and I am now thinking about that in a new light, as I am seeing the issue from a different perspective. We were always told that the police were the last resort, and the police were used quite frequently. People would be told, “This is a police matter.” I go back to points that Mr Evans made. Should other agencies have more power and more confidence to take things? It is not necessarily the fault of social workers or health workers if they think that something is a police matter.

Another thing that Mr Evans said chimed with me. He said that we are a society that can call on the police. We definitely do not want to lose that. It is quite a difficult balance to find.

We have heard the term “burn-out” and about the pressures that police officers are clearly under. We all know police officers in our own lives. I have friends as well as constituents who are police officers, and I have heard from the ones whom I have spoken to that they still love their jobs, but they are feeling more pressure than they ever have. I hear that across a range of services.

Maybe ACC Hawkins could answer this question. Has any analysis been done of what the main contributing pressures are that lead to the feeling of burn-out that has been described? We have heard a lot about dealing with mental health and more complex issues. Where does Covid come into it? Where do resources come into it? Has any overall analysis been done?

It is just a wee supplementary to your line of questioning, convener—it is probably for David Hamilton. He said that there might be personal or work-related reasons for suicide. How do we make a judgment on that? Everybody’s life is complicated, and various elements might be intertwined. For example, a person’s work might lead them into substance abuse at home, which might then become the precipitating factor for a crisis. How would the police—or anybody, in fact—identify which factor was more prevalent? Does that make sense?

Good morning, panel. First, I must apologise, as I have moved into a new room in my office and the light seems to come and go. It is completely outwith my control. If, when I ask questions, I go into shadow, that is what is happening.

I thank the panellists for all their answers so far in what has been a very informative first session on the bill. There are two areas that I want to ask about. I know that you have touched on this a wee bit already, but are you able to expand on your views on the three-month reflection period proposed in the bill for an applicant to confirm whether they wish to proceed with the gender recognition certificate? I have already heard indications of some of your views, but the previous discussion was more about the period before the application. The views on that were given in quite strong terms, but can you talk about the proposed three-month reflection period?

Convener, as I am remote and you are there in person, I am happy for you to decide on the order in which folk respond.

I thank the panel for those thorough and detailed answers.

On the requirement in the bill for the person who applies for a GRC to be “ordinarily resident in Scotland”, some concerns have been raised that that might lead to trans people from other parts of the UK travelling to Scotland to apply. Is there any merit in those arguments? Do you think that the committee needs to consider that point when scrutinising the bill?

I am happy with any order of response, convener.

No, thanks.

It is a great pleasure to speak on Richard Leonard’s amendment. I think that there are two broad issues here—the bill itself, and the support for compensation. It is important at least to me but, I am sure, to my colleagues as well, given the evidence that we have heard, that we do not conflate those two issues at this point.

I will explain what I mean by that. I want to leave the people in the public gallery and others who are watching our meeting in absolutely no doubt that I—and I believe that I also speak for many of my colleagues, although they are obviously free to speak for themselves—fully support the view that the miners should be compensated for the wrongs that they endured. I met a group of miners at Moodiesburn last Wednesday night, and it was harrowing to hear what they and their families experienced after they lost their jobs and did not have financial incomes for a long time. I do not think that anybody with a conscience would not support those people being compensated. However, that is not the issue here.

I know that Richard Leonard is not a member of the committee, but the committee looked at the evidence on compensation a lot. It came up in almost every evidence session on the bill. I see the convener nodding. We all asked questions about it and tried to see how it might work, and we came to the conclusion, as people will have seen in our report, that the bill is not the place to do it. There are a number of risks attached to it, one of which is that it could delay the bill for a significant time. Compensation is not the main purpose of the bill, and it would bring about a whole new legislative-type framework. We are in a space just now where we are talking about the pardon.

I say to the cabinet secretary, who will respond to Richard Leonard, that we need to look at what we can do to make compensation happen, whether that is via the UK Government or via something that the Scottish Government can do after the passage of the bill. What campaigns and processes can we be involved in in that regard? Would the cabinet secretary agree to meet me to discuss how the issue might be moved forward?

The fact that we are debating amendment 16 but are not going to get to vote on it today should demonstrate to anybody watching how complicated the issue is. My colleague Richard Leonard has lodged an amendment at stage 2. The Presiding Officer has considered the amendment and deemed that it is not appropriate to take it forward at this stage, because the financial aspects of the issue have not been considered in a financial resolution. That, in itself, should demonstrate that the committee has wrangled with the issue.

I want to be clear: there are two separate issues here. There is the bill, which is about pardoning miners for the wrongs that they endured, and there is the compensation issue. I do not want it to seem that, because we are not voting on the amendment today, I and other members do not support compensation. I would like to explore with the cabinet secretary how we might go about achieving the aims of the amendment.

I welcome the amendments that have been lodged, particularly those by the cabinet secretary. They reflect the evidence that the committee heard on expanding the types of crimes that are covered, and it is good to see that the Government and the cabinet secretary have listened to what the committee has said.

I especially note the introduction of new condition C, which brings real additional value to the legislation. We have heard about the financial impact on mining families, miners and, of course, communities. If Willie Doolan does not mind my saying, Moodiesburn is an example of a place where the community has still not fully recovered. Including in the scope of the bill individuals who perhaps committed a financial crime to relieve financial suffering is an absolutely fantastic move forward, and I will certainly support that and all the Government amendments.

I know that some of the other amendments that Alexander Stewart and Pam Gosal lodged are likely to be superseded by Government amendments. The Government has already given clarity on those matters.

Given what he said, I have a lot of sympathy for Richard Leonard’s amendment 17. My constituency would previously have been covered by the old Strathclyde region, and it seems strange and odd that only people in Strathclyde were convicted of an offence under this particular legislation. However, I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said and have heard his very clear offer to Richard Leonard to sit down and work with him ahead of stage 3. When he was making that offer, I saw Richard Leonard nodding his head. It seems to be a sensible solution to get a bit more clarity on that issue. If only folk in Strathclyde have been convicted of those offences, I am not happy, and I know that the cabinet secretary will not be happy, either.

I welcome the panel and the people in the public gallery. It is good to see folk back there after such a long time. I hope that Willie Doolan from my constituency does not mind if I give him a special shout-out. He has been a real stalwart for the Auchengeich mining community in Moodiesburn.

I welcome the debate and that the cabinet secretary has responded to the committee’s recommendations in broadening the scope of the definition of who would be a qualifying individual. As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, we heard strong and compelling evidence on that. I am very much minded to support the Government’s amendment, which I think is a major step forward.

I also support the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, but I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the difficulties that might be involved. I would back up Pam Duncan-Glancy’s ask of the cabinet secretary at this stage, which is to work with the Government before stage 3. I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to that. Rather than moving her amendments at stage 2, taking them forward into stage 3 might be a sensible solution. However, the amendments that have been lodged by Keith Brown at stage 2 are certainly a fantastic step forward and they definitely add value to the bill.

It is very important. We might not be those men who have said those things or done those things, but we have all been men for all our lives. We have been younger men and may have been in situations where we could have done more. That is why work such as this is important in changing the culture and society that we live in and in challenging men. We have got a big role in that change. I thank you for that.

On a personal note, I became dad to a daughter in the past year. When you were speaking about some of the things that it was reported to you that people were saying to others outside nightclubs for example, it sent shivers down my spine to think that, if we do not do something to change that culture, someone who I love so much could be in that position, too. It changes your mindset. Thank you for challenging us in that way and for making us feel uncomfortable. I say that on behalf of all the men around the table today.

My question is about funding. You have said that you think that the Scottish Government will need to provide additional funding in support of the legislation. Where specifically do you think that that funding should go?