Chamber and committees

Would any of the other witnesses like to respond?

Do the witnesses agree that the bill’s proposals will not result in any additional costs for local authorities or charities?

John Picton, do you have anything to add?

Thank you very much, everyone, for your evidence. Next week, we will continue to take evidence on the bill when we hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government.

That concludes our public business.

International women’s day means something different to everyone. Of course, celebrating the achievements of women and scrutinising the progress that is still to be made come front and centre, but there are many different issues surrounding equality and how we achieve it. All women have very different experiences and priorities, as has been accurately reflected in the debate today.

Women are still disproportionately impacted by poverty. In Scotland, that is even worse than it was last year, with women having been hit hardest by the cost of living crisis. Women are still more likely to have caring responsibilities and to depend on social security, so of course they are directly impacted by the benefit cap and the two-child limit. The cost of living crisis is just compounding inequalities.

If we are to truly embrace equity in order to build a more diverse, equitable and inclusive society, tackling poverty must be at the absolute core of what we do. Women will never be able to be the best that they can be when they are living in poverty. Although that is true of any person, women in Scotland are disproportionately impacted.

I turn to Parliament and politics. As part of this year’s international women’s day, Engender is calling on MSPs to act for women’s equity by supporting equal representation for women and marginalised groups in politics, and I absolutely support that. We are doing well in Scotland on that front and the difference that that is making is clear. Over the past few years, I have been so proud to hear more and more women’s issues being raised and discussed in Parliament. At one time in our history, it would have had to be international women’s day for issues such as periods, women’s safety, perinatal mental health, menopause or breastfeeding to make it to the forefront—but not any longer. It is so refreshing to speak openly and honestly about those things.

Thanks to the representation of women in this Parliament, more and more policies and legislation are being passed with the aim of advancing women’s rights. Just look at the women’s health plan, the women’s health champion and key policies including the expansion of early learning, which has unquestionably broken down so many barriers for women.

However, although more and more women’s issues are being raised and debated, structures and attitudes are not moving quickly. I have experienced sexism and misogyny in Parliament and have witnessed it on countless occasions. Most of the women who are here today will have experienced abuse on social media, and many will have been questioned in ways that no man would ever be questioned.

I always think back to one of the first things that happened to me when I was first elected as a local councillor. When I attended my first community council meeting, someone told me that they did not like the jumper that I wore in my photo that had gone on the council website. I know that the women in the chamber will understand how deflating that was. I was attending my first community council as a councillor and, before I had even opened my mouth, I was being judged on my choice of clothes in a picture rather than on my priorities, my views or my work to date. It is sad that I and many others continue to have such experiences on a daily basis.

I also have concerns about the “family friendly” label that the Parliament has. I have a one-year-old and a three-year-old at home, so I have direct experience of the issue. There have been no childcare facilities in the Parliament since before the pandemic. My attendance at cross-party group meetings and parliamentary receptions is almost out of the question if I want to make it home for story time. The timing of debates is so unpredictable that it is impossible to be a reliable parent. That impacts not just on members but on staff and the public.

I say that not so that people will feel sorry for me or for politicians, but to emphasise that there are still huge barriers to women entering politics. That is true of so many spheres in which women have historically had less involvement than men have had. How can we possibly hope to inspire more women to enter politics when the system is not yet ready for them and attitudes still need to move on?

I once heard someone say, during a discussion on similar issues, “Well, that’s politics for you.” They were promoting the idea that someone who enters politics has to accept the institution for what it is. That is such a dangerous way of thinking. Politics and the establishment were all built for men, by men, around men, so it is no wonder that the system does not fit with the lives of women in the 21st century.

We need women in Parliament because that means more women’s issues are at the forefront of the conversation. Likewise, we need more mothers, more disabled women, more women who come from poverty and more women from different ethnic groups. As we work to encourage women into politics, we need to ensure that we break down barriers and make the structural change that is needed so that Parliament, politics and all other spheres work for women just as much as they work for men.

I was pleased to see the recommendations that emerged from the Parliament’s gender sensitive audit, and I look forward to their being progressed.

I want to speak briefly about historical misogyny. A year ago today, the First Minister made an apology to the women who were historically convicted of witchcraft. Not long after that, I lodged my proposal for a witchcraft convictions pardons bill. My members’ bill proposal received a lot of support, naturally, but a lot of people also told me that it was a waste of time.

I want to respond, briefly, right here and right now on international women’s day. We absolutely have to look to the past if we are to tackle issues such as misogyny in the modern day, because it is in history and tradition that stereotypes and misogyny are manifested. It is unacceptable that women who were accused of witchcraft, arrested and, at times, beaten, starved and brutally raped, are still labelled as criminals in the eyes of the law. I do not want my children growing up in a society where that is the case.

On this international women’s day, let us commit to continuing to look at our behaviours, past and present, and to tackle the inequalities that still exist in society. [Applause.]

Welcome back, everyone. I welcome our second panel: Vicki Cahill, policy officer at Alzheimer Scotland; Mridul Wadhwa, the chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre; and Rami Okasha, the chief executive of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, who all join us in person. We also have Shona NicIllinein, the chief executive of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, who joins us remotely.

As with the first panel, I have a few points to mention about the format of the meeting. I apologise in advance for this. Please wait until I—or the member who is asking the question—say your name before speaking. Please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you begin to speak. You can indicate with an R in the dialogue box in BlueJeans or simply with a show of your hand if you wish to come in on a question. Please do not feel that you all have to answer every question—if you have nothing to add to what others have said, that is absolutely fine.

Before we begin, I put on record that Bòrd na Gàidhlig requested to give evidence in Gaelic this morning. The clerks have spoken with colleagues across the Parliament with a view to facilitating interpretation of this evidence session, but we have been informed that that is not possible due to various factors. The Parliament is aware that there is an issue and is acting to resolve it as new broadcasting systems come into operation. We are truly sorry for not being able to facilitate interpretation at our meeting on this occasion and recognise that that is an unfortunate situation.

I now pass over to our deputy convener, Emma Roddick, who will, in Gaelic, invite Bòrd na Gàidhlig to give a short introduction to its evidence in Gaelic. Afterwards, an interpretation in English will be provided before we hear from other witnesses.

We will move to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

Would anyone else like to come in on that point? I do not want to put anyone on the spot.

We will now move on to questions from Foysol Choudhury, who is joining us online.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2023 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies this morning from James Dornan, and I welcome Evelyn Tweed to the meeting as a committee substitute.

Agenda item 1 is our first evidence session on the Charities (Regulation and Administration) Scotland Bill. The bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 November 2022, following two consultation exercises by the Scottish Government in 2019 and 2021. Its aims are to strengthen and update the current legislative framework for charities by increasing their transparency and accountability, to make improvements to the powers of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and to bring Scottish charity legislation up to date with certain key aspects of charity regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Yesterday, the committee held an informal engagement session on the bill with a range of individuals from across the third sector as well as those representing accountancy and law firms, and those discussions have provided a useful introduction to today’s evidence taking and will help to inform members’ scrutiny of the bill. A summary of them will be available on the committee’s website shortly.

I welcome our first panel to the meeting. Joining us in the room are Jason Henderson, policy and public affairs officer at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and Sarah Latto, policy officer at Volunteer Scotland. We are also joined remotely by David Gibson, the Methodist Church’s representative on the Scottish Churches Committee; Steven Inglis, team leader at Aberdeen City Council; and Madelaine Sproule, solicitor for the Church of Scotland. I welcome all of you and thank you for coming along this morning.

Before we begin, I will make a few quick points about the format of the meeting. First, I ask our virtual witnesses to please wait until I—or the member asking the question—say your name before speaking. Moreover, please allow our broadcasting colleagues a few seconds to turn on your microphone before you start to speak. If any of our virtual witnesses wishes to come in on a question, they can indicate as much by putting an R in the dialogue box on BlueJeans or simply by a show of their hand.

Please do not feel that you all have to answer every single question. It is okay if you have nothing to add to what others have said.

As we have a lot to get through this morning, I must ask everyone to keep their questions, answers and any follow-up questions quite tight. Colleagues in the room should indicate to either me or the clerk if they wish to ask a supplementary question, and committee members who are online should use the chat box or WhatsApp.

We will move to our first theme, with questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy.