���˿���

The second new Scots refugee integration strategy runs until December next year, and partners have begun discussions on the arrangements to develop the third strategy with the aim of publishing that in 2023. We want the strategy to be shaped by refugees and people with experience of asylum as well as those with expertise in supporting them. During the past few weeks, I have met people who have settled here and have heard their voices directly on some of the issues that remain—some of which are reserved and some of which are devolved—which we need to work through.

The member also made reference to the work with COSLA on the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, which was published in March. That looks at improving and strengthening the support and provision for people who have no recourse to public funds. The strategy has been informed by powerful testimony from people with lived experience of suffering destitution. It sets out the initial actions to deliver essential needs, to enable access to specialist advice and advocacy and to make sure that people can pursue their ambitions and be active members of our communities. That is very pertinent to the work that we are doing to make sure that Scotland plays its part in supporting those who have come from Afghanistan in terrible circumstances, who are very vulnerable indeed.

Afghan families are already being welcomed into Scottish communities through the Afghan locally employed staff relocation scheme and, so far, 22 local authorities have expressed a keenness to support the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We have been pushing the UK Government for more information on that. Last week, Angus Robertson and I had a meeting with UK ministers to consider the details, including funding, to ensure that local authorities have the information that they need. There are some practical issues relating to access to interpreters and ensuring that people who first go to hotels are resettled as quickly as possible.

We have a long history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths, including those who are seeking asylum and refuge from war and terror elsewhere. It is important that we continue to play our part.

It goes without saying that Scotland is a diverse and multicultural society, that that diversity strengthens us as a nation and that we are better for it. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for hatred, bigotry or prejudice, and we absolutely condemn anti-Catholic prejudice and anti-Irish racism.

Fulton MacGregor has made a good point about tackling sectarianism in our schools. Third sector organisations in particular are doing a lot of good work in our schools to try to tackle those issues. They are not easy to tackle—some of them are deep rooted and generational—but we need to do absolutely everything that we can to tackle them, and the Government is determined to do so.

Pam Duncan-Glancy has asked a number of questions. I will try to cover all of them.

Pam Duncan-Glancy referred to the disability summit last year. That summit, which was very well attended—there were more than 100 participants—was an opportunity for ministers to hear from disabled people’s organisations and disabled people in particular in responding to issues that were highlighted. We have a wealth of information from that summit that will help to guide the development of the next disability equality plan.

Pam Duncan-Glancy specifically mentioned employment. “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People: employment action plan”, which is now three years old, sets out the actions to deliver the ambition, working with partners, to at least halve the disability employment gap by 2038.

The second annual progress report, which was published in March this year, highlights the work that has been undertaken to date in supporting the delivery of that ambition. It shows that the disability employment gap in 2019 was the lowest recorded in recent years. However, that gap widened in 2020, unfortunately. That was particularly in relation to Covid, I suspect. It moved from 32.6 per cent to 33.4 per cent, so we have work to do, and we need to ensure that we take further action to address that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned social care, and that issue has been raised by stakeholders, as you would imagine. We have ambitious plans for the national care service, which she is more than aware of, and those will be important in restructuring our care services. However, we need to ensure that people are supported. There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from the pandemic on people’s vulnerability and on the situation that they have found themselves in.

Finally, on learning disability, we are taking forward a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill to make improvements in that area. There is a commitment to having a commissioner, as we recognise that there is a particular vulnerability and a need for an office to support the rights of those who are most vulnerable.

On accessible homes, the member will be aware that “Housing to 2040” contains a lot about accessibility and ensuring that homes are barrier free as we develop and deliver the affordable housing supply. It is really important that homes stand the test of time and are barrier free, no matter what challenges people have.

We expect to move forward with the gender recognition bill next spring, so we will be giving you more information about that. The human rights bill will be introduced later in the session. Good work is being done on the bill, which is very complex. Again, we will be able to give you more defined timescales on that as we move forward. It is a far-reaching piece of legislation. Christina McKelvie recently convened the advisory board that is progressing a lot of the detailed work on the legislation. Good progress is being made.

That is an important question. Part of the Deputy First Minister’s Covid recovery work is focused on listening to the experiences of those communities that have been most impacted. The DFM has undertaken a number of engagements, listening to those with lived experience to find out what their priorities are to build a Covid recovery strategy. Again, I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on that work, if that would be helpful.

I hope that, when we take forward the bill, we can try to find as many areas of consensus as possible and that it can be done in a respectful environment—in particular, when we discuss the issues in more detail in Parliament.

You might be aware that the first consultation showed that 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of the reform. The second consultation sought views on the draft bill itself, so its approach was qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, it asked whether the minimum age should be reduced to 16, and it included other specific questions on the bill.

Because of the volume of responses—there were 17,000—an in-depth analysis of them was not possible. That is why only the organisational responses were published; it would have taken an inordinate amount of officials’ time to extrapolate all the detail from 17,000 responses. The same approach was taken in the first consultation on the issue and with the equal marriage legislation. It is important to note that there has been an independent analysis of the consultation, which has given a clear summary of views on key aspects of reform such as the minimum age.

Karen Adam has made important points. In the second consultation, we tried to put out information and to reassure people. There is no conflict between the proposed legislation and the rights of women and girls. The Scottish Government has brought forward a huge amount of work on protecting women and girls. That work continues with the misogyny working group. The equally safe strategy, which we might touch on today, is hugely important. Through the work on the bill, we are trying to make the lives of a small number of people that bit easier by changing the process by which someone can obtain a gender recognition certificate.

Karen Adam made the point that some of the debate seems to indicate a desire to move away from the ability to obtain a gender recognition certificate in any way. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we can focus the debate on making the process—which already exists—easier and on removing the difficulties that make the lives of a small number of people very difficult. It is about making the process easier for those who are affected. As we take forward the proposals, we will ensure that they in no way impact on the rights of women and girls.

We have been in discussion with the UK Government on that matter. As the committee is probably aware, the UK Government has said that it is looking to legislate in the area. We have had communications with it to try to get clarity on the scope of that. We have said all along that, if the scope does not go as far as we want it to, we will look to legislate. There are some complexities in relation to devolved and reserved issues, which we would need to work through. However, we have been pretty clear.

I caught the tail end of the earlier evidence session—very powerful testimony and evidence were given. We need to find out from the UK Government what its intentions are in more detail. However, as we have said, it still stands that, if the UK Government either will not legislate or will not go as far as we want to, we will bring forward our own legislation.

We need to reflect on that. I am not in a position to answer at the moment. I would want to come back to the committee to bring more details on those questions, if that is okay.

There have already been two large consultations, which have elicited a huge number of responses, as the member points out. It is not likely that a further consultation will resolve some of the existing polarised views on the bill to which the member alluded. We can best move forward by having open communication, by challenging misconceptions and inaccurate representations and by showing leadership in the Parliament. As I said, there is no conflict between the rights of a small number of trans men and women and the rights of girls and women.

Threats to women and girls come from abusive men, which is an issue that is very close to my heart, as a lifelong feminist. In my experience, those men have never found the need to pretend to be a trans woman in order to abuse women and girls. We have to tackle men’s violence in society and to stay focused on where the real threat to women and girls comes from.

That said, as we take forward the bill, we will ensure that we listen to genuine concerns. There are already protections for single-sex spaces and for services that need a level of discretion, and it is important to maintain those protections. That has already been laid out.

As we move forward, even though there are divergent views, I hope that, as ���˿���, we can try to take some of the heat out of the debate, dial down some of the rhetoric and consider the issues in a calm and measured way. At the end of the day, we are talking about a small number of very vulnerable people whose lives can be made that much better by the bill.