Chamber and committees

I am happy to support all the amendments in this group. Amendments 45 and 48 add a new safeguard to the bill that would require a countersignatory process to accompany any new application for a gender recognition certificate, similar to that for applying for a passport.

Although the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting amendments 45 and 48, we make it clear that that safeguard is not enough. However, it is an improvement on the existing provision in the bill, which is why we will support the amendments.

I would prefer existing legal safeguards to be retained, as my colleagues have already set out. We should, in particular, keep the age at which one can apply for a GRC at 18, keep the period in which one must live in an acquired gender at two years, and retain the need for a medical diagnosis when applying for a GRC. However, Michael Marra’s amendments improve the bill as drafted, so I am content to support them.

Amendment 154 provides a concrete definition of what a statutory declaration would entail. I put it on record that I do not think that that is enough; applications should also be accompanied by an associated medical diagnosis and a longer period lived in the acquired gender should be required. However, given that the Scottish Government has failed to properly define what a statutory declaration entails, amendment 154 at least provides a definition that already exists in law and that has been used for some time: namely, that provided in the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. I hope that that will bring greater clarity to the bill, which is why I am happy to support amendment 154.

We discussed the high drop-out rates in colleges earlier. Would the minister consider changing how data is collected, so that, when people switch colleges or courses or transfer to other colleges, that does not count as a drop-out?

Lastly, I speak to a lot of businesses, and colleges are vital for businesses’ journey to getting the right skills. As a visitor to the committee, I cannot emphasise this enough: please think about all the questions that have been asked today by colleagues. We need to invest in colleges; we need to help them, whether through capital funding or pupils; and we need to do much more. I cannot emphasise enough how often colleges speak to me about funding cuts. You talked earlier about where to get the funding, but you are the minister, so you should be telling us where you can move money around—I do not mean by making cuts. We need to consider what is best for colleges, because businesses are crying out for those skills.

Good morning, minister and officials. My question follows Bob Doris’s question about closing the funding gap.

Not only do colleges get less per student than universities, but the Improvement Service’s local government benchmarking framework shows that average gross spend per pupil in Scotland in 2020-21 was £9,273 for pre-school education, £5,916 at primary school and £7,657 at secondary school. Why is funding for colleges so much lower than funding for universities and schools? Are university students and school pupils worth more than college students?

I thank the minister for being honest. We need to use all the organisations and partnerships out there to ensure that we reach out.

The good news is that my mother came back to me to ask about one of the groups. It was to do with an exercise that you are doing out there through one of the organisations. She said, “Should I go to this with my friends?” I said that she certainly should. That is the first time that the Government has reached out to my mum—in that many years, it has never reached out before, and she is quite heavily involved with the community.

That is good news. However, although it is fantastic that those organisations—I talk to all the organisations that you mentioned—are doing a great job, could the Government sometimes do more to get out there and reach people, maybe in religious settings? The congregations in religious settings are massive. The Government could reach out in that way to raise awareness first, rather than just going in and collecting data. Sometimes people need to know who you are and what you are doing—it is about making an introduction, rather than going straight into using an organisation. That approach can be helpful.

Sometimes people are missed. As I said, my mother found out about that organisation only because somebody spoke about it in the temple, which is where she is all the time. I was very pleased to hear that the Government is reaching out in that way. What are your views on that, minister?

Good morning, minister. In your opening statement, you spoke about reaching out in order to address violence against women and girls. How do you reach communities that are hard to reach, such as black, Asian and ethnic minority communities? Last week, we heard that some communities are hesitant about letting people in, answering questions and giving their details, because, sometimes, they feel that they are not heard or they do not know why they should give the information. It would be good to know how the Government is reaching out to those communities. Do you provide any feedback to people after taking information from them?

I thank the minister for that answer.

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

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.

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?