Chamber and committees

It is to do with violence and equality.

Thank you for that information. It is good to have all that context, but to go back to the actual question, did you think that the budget met the gender budgeting standard?

Good morning. Thank you for all the information that you have provided so far.

My question follows on from what Pam Duncan-Glancy asked. In oral evidence, the Scottish Women’s Budget Group said that a focus on gender equality was important, alongside a participative approach to identifying areas for preventative spend or policy. The Scottish Women’s Convention noted that improving rights through gender budgeting would improve other aspects of human rights, such as child poverty. Do you feel that the budget meets the gender budgeting standards? Could you provide details as to why that is or is not the case? That question is for Professor O’Hagan.

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?