���˿���

Thank you very much for that. It was really helpful—particularly your analysis of the human rights that are at play here. It is really important that we have a solid understanding of those if we are going to take a human rights-based approach to the work, which I hope and believe we will.

I have a question that sort of follows on from some of the conversation. Forgive me if it sounds as though we are labouring the point, but it is important that we get this right, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed.

In the SHRC submission, you say that the legislation should be drawn up to ensure that there is no interference with religious thought or access to non-judgmental support such as has just been described. Can you tell us a bit more specifically about how that would be drafted? For example, would it be a lift and lay from the Victoria legislation, or would it be something different? Is there something missing from that legislation or something that should be amended?

The equalities commission in Victoria has a specific role in the Victoria legislation to mediate, intervene and investigate. Could that work in Scotland? If so, who could play that role?

Thank you. I apologise for skipping ahead to the international stuff. I realised that I stopped the conversation on Pam Gosal’s question—I apologise for that.

My question has almost been answered by what has been said. In its submission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission talks about a

“harms-based approach, which disregards benign intent”.

Given what we have heard about the rapporteur’s definition of harm and the three prongs, we could make an assumption, but how would you define “benign intent”?

Thank you, minister, for drawing the matter to our attention. I see no reason why we should not support the LCM. In fact, I think that if we do not, we will deny payments to some individuals. I agree that a legislative consent motion is the right thing at this time.

We are constantly hearing about additional changes to benefits; this morning we heard from a number of poverty organisations strong evidence that we need to be doing things around eligibility for disability benefits and carers benefits sooner rather than later. We hear consistently that the system is almost at capacity in terms of safe and secure delivery of the benefits that we are already delivering. Is now the time to look at capacity in the system, and to consider what additional resources might be needed?

Thank you, convener, for giving me another one, because I know that I have asked a number already.

I want to put on record that I think that the £20 uplift to universal credit was necessary, because we had the lowest level of social security in decades. To take that away will leave families completely destitute: they will be unable to buy food and so on. Everyone has made the point about how serious that is and the decision must be reversed. I also think that not extending it to legacy benefits was discrimination. Chris Birt’s point about disabled people still going hungry is absolutely key, and the uplift should have been applied to those benefits.

I am getting quite frustrated with both Governments giving the answer that to start doing work on certain things would be logistically difficult or impossible because of IT systems—we hear that quite a bit. There is an urgent need to act to put money in people’s pockets now, given everything that we have heard. As a result of the universal credit cut, something like 4,000 children in Scotland might no longer qualify for the Scottish child payment. Can you think of any mechanism that we could use so that those 4,000 children retain their eligibility and can continue to access the Scottish child payment?

In the same vein, is there anything else that we can do with the social security powers in Scotland to improve the incomes of families across Scotland?

Thank you for allowing me to come back in, convener.

The answers were really helpful. I have two brief follow-up questions. First, would doubling the child payment as soon as possible—as in, now—and again next year have an impact on meeting the targets? Secondly, on the point about social housing, are we currently targeting such housing at the right families in Scotland?

Thank you for coming along. What is the panel’s assessment of trends in child poverty in Scotland, the likelihood that we will meet the targets, and whether you think there is any way other than by using social security to meet the targets?

A number of the actions that you have outlined are not necessarily in legislation. For example, the targets on accessible housing are not in legislation; they are a matter for discretion, and that reflects some of the inequalities that still exist for disabled people.

You have said that there are plans for a national transitions strategy. Can you set out why that would be a strategy and not a bill or a legislative right at this stage?

It was clear from this morning’s evidence session that people think that a lot of the legislation in relation to the ban is devolved to Scotland. Is it the Scottish Government’s position that any ban in Scotland would include gender as well as sexual orientation? In addition, would the ban include advertising, and not include exemptions in the case of consent?

If that is okay, convener. I thank Fulton MacGregor for allowing me in.

Last week, I met representatives of an organisation called Tell MAMA—“MAMA” stands for measuring anti-Muslim attacks—who talked about the increase in hate crime that people from ethnic minorities have experienced. One of their concerns is that such crime is being experienced more in a home setting, from neighbours and people in their local community. That has a particular impact on the way in which we use our hate crime legislation. Do you have any plans to look at that issue? Do you plan to work with housing associations, for example, to look at how we could start to address some of those concerns?