³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It might surprise colleagues that I want to speak to this group of amendments, but I will be supporting amendment 14.

Taken on its own, amendment 14 removes the specific criminal offence that the bill introduces of making a false declaration in relation to one’s trans status. We heard from several people and organisations in evidence sessions, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Amnesty International, JustRight Scotland and Engender, that that offence is unnecessary. It is already a criminal offence under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 to make a false statutory declaration. The introduction of a new offence risks unnecessarily criminalising children.

However, there is another reason not to have the offence: having an offence that names trans people specifically potentially makes an already marginalised and vulnerable group more of a target for litigation.

Therefore, for reasons that are very different from those of Sue Webber, and that come from a very different place of principle and value, I will vote in favour of the removal of section 14 from the bill.

Thanks; that is helpful, and it ties in to my second question. You spoke about the important role of REPs and of using the local knowledge that they provide to identify sectors and clusters that could benefit. However, there is potential for tension between the local, regional and national levels on both investment and identification of sectors, in particular when we try to match that work up with some of the skills gap-identification work that you spoke about.

You said that the skills inquiry will report next spring, but can you give us any indication of whose priorities will win out? The types of investment and approaches to skills and supply chain issues for an energy economy are very different to the investment and skills focus that we would need for a hospitality economy, for instance, and there are going to be distinct geographical tensions in that. How do you see those conflicts and tensions being resolved?

I have a couple of other questions, but perhaps I can ask those offline.

Good morning, minister. Thank you for being here, and thank you for what you have said so far.

You have partly answered my first question, which is about investment zones. In the past 12 hours or so, it has been announced that they are likely to be scrapped.

Various discussions are taking place about what might replace them, such as urban regeneration plans and so on. I appreciate that it is a very moveable feast. What will your priorities be in your discussions with the UK Government around the consequences for Scotland? If we are not going to have investment zones in the low-tax, low-regulation space, what will your priorities be with regard to equivalent support in Scotland?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us, minister, and thank you for your opening words.

I hear very strongly the commitment to human rights and equalities budgeting and to embedding and mainstreaming that across all processes. The holistic approach that you talk about is, of course, important if we are going to see genuine action in the prevention agenda across the elements that you have highlighted.

I am interested in how we make connections between the equality impact assessments that are done once budgets are determined and the outcomes. Often with equality impact assessments, it seems that a desktop process is gone through. That has meaning, but it always looks back the way. What is your assessment of how we are doing in doing that as a continuous thing? As we start to talk about the budget that we will agree in the next few months, how are assessments around equalities and inclusion, for example, being done now so that we do not have to look back at things when everything is done in February?

Sorry, Pam.

Thank you; that is really helpful. Part of my question is motivated by comments that have been made by service providers that are funded through different strands of Scottish Government funding around the resource spending review. They are looking at some of the directions of travel that were laid out in the review. I know that matters have moved on—sometimes in the wrong direction, for the reasons that you outlined—in the intervening six months; however, there is concern around decisions being taken without an understanding of the consequences in terms of material outcomes. Other members might want to pick upon that.

You mentioned the national performance framework. Linking that to where we consider we should be, how do you see the national performance framework giving us the outcomes that we want? Pam Duncan-Glancy will come in later to talk about the issue of minimum core outcomes when we are dealing with such questions, but it seems to me that we do not always understand the consequences of the decisions that we take here. I am curious to know whether you think that we are moving in the right direction, because I do not think that we have everything in place yet.

Where do you see the pressure points, and where we need a bit more intervention to better understand the consequences of financial decisions?

You have all mentioned the people shortage in different ways, but the fact is that some of that is not within our control. What would you like us to do to try to make welding and other fabrication jobs more attractive?

Ian, I must apologise for mixing you and Paul Sheerin up earlier. Does your sector have same the mismatch with regard to the skills and labour balance, or are there just gaps everywhere?