³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

No, I am not suggesting that for a second; I am simply acknowledging that there is poverty everywhere and that there is a fixed budget. I am saying that, from my perspective, I see evidence that that targeted assistance to my area, which was in great need, has made improvements. If we found that, down the line, spreading the money across the whole country was having an impact on those improvements or had resulted in the money not having a great impact, would that change your thinking around whether the support should be targeted or universal? That was my question.

Just while we are on that refreshed approach, I would say that I think that all of us would recognise that there is poverty everywhere. Certainly, Oliver Mundell made some good points about poverty being in rural areas and not just in urban areas, but the timing of the change is hugely difficult for the nine challenge authorities. I think it is widely acknowledged that the areas of greater deprivation have been affected the most by the pandemic and its impacts.

I should declare an interest in that my local authority is one of the areas that was a challenge authority, and it made excellent progress. We have spoken a bit about evidence of improvement. Education Scotland’s 2021 report about the Scottish attainment challenge said that, in North Ayrshire, the attainment in literacy and numeracy between 2016 and 2019 had improved for learners at all stages and, in addition, the pace of improvement of literacy had been faster for children and young people living in the most deprived areas. Clearly, the work that was being done was helping.

If we are operating within a fixed budget and we acknowledge that there is poverty everywhere, is there any evidence that you could hear or any situation that you could see that would change your position that it should go to all 32 authorities? If there is evidence that the improvements decrease, for example, should the approach be changed back and the money targeted to the areas of greatest need? How do we deal with this hugely difficult decision?

Convener, I note for the record that Angela Cousins is my constituent and that we met in 2018 to discuss the matter.

Angela, thank you for being with us this morning. I am sorry for what happened to you. Thank you for being so brave in speaking up for other people.

I will ask you about the suggestion that the Scottish Government has made that it will consider and address any future recommendations made by the current inquiry to improve legislation, policy and practice. Will recommendations from the current inquiry be able to address the concerns that you have about what happened to you in the religious organisation of which you were part?

You say that children within the organisation would not talk to anyone outside it. Is that why you feel that mandatory reporting should be introduced?

While I do not in any way disagree with my colleague Paul Sweeney, I ask that we be thoughtful about how we proceed. We do not want to just generate lots and lots of correspondence. Perhaps we can do a bit of desktop research to find out what the differences might be from the point of view of guidance.

Yes—it is seachdain na Gàidhlig or Gaelic week.

Mòran taing—thank you, convener.

We have been given clear evidence on Gaelic and its use in Scotland. The Gaelic language has been spoken throughout Scotland for many centuries. It is not the only language of Scotland but is one of Scotland’s languages and should command equal respect with the other languages of our nation.

There are many economic benefits. The petitioner’s claim that there is no evidence for a desire to support the Gaelic language throughout Scotland is not backed up by the evidence. In my constituency in Ayrshire there is a Gaelic-medium primary school. Calls for such education are parent led—they do not come from the Government. Every party in the Parliament is committed to Gaelic and supports education, arts and broadcasting. As you said, convener, there are plans to introduce a languages bill in the current session. For all those reasons, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

Thank you—that is helpful.

I have one reflection from having previously been on the education committee. There are often calls for very specific things to be taught. That is not how our system works, which I guess also applies to the topic of relationships and sexual health. That is not something only for teachers to tell children about; it is a job for the whole community, or perhaps for families.

I suggest that we write to Education Scotland to ask how it is monitoring implementation of the current teaching resources. We might also want to hear from the Scottish Government on how the views of children and young people are taken on board and used to influence policy in this area. We probably also want to know when the public consultation will open and how it will be promoted to children and young people, and when the Government anticipates that the revised guidance will be in place.

I seem to recall that the education committee did some work in this area quite recently, although it might not have been that recently. Perhaps the clerks could find out. I realise that colleagues might wish to reach out to stakeholders, but I am keen that we do not duplicate work, so we should check on what has been happening in other areas.

What you have informed the committee of helpfully covers the main points that I was going to make, convener. I think that, in summary, two aspects of the petition are important and there are two reasons why we should keep it open.

The first aspect is around data. Obviously, public bodies have a duty to collect and use data appropriately. The second aspect is highlighted in the submission from Lesley Warrender and the submission from our colleague Michelle Thomson MSP, and that is about the centring of victims. Sometimes when we talk about data in such matters, it can all be a bit cold. At the centre of this issue are women who have been raped, and the consequences of some of the practices that are being spoken about here are, frankly, devastating for victims of that particular crime.

I suggest that the committee ask the Scottish Government for its consideration of the recent rulings of the inner house of the Court of Session and what implications they have for the recording practice of Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in relation to people who are charged or convicted of rape and attempted rape. The petitioner considers that the recent rulings of the inner house of the Court of Session place a duty on Police Scotland to collect data on biological sex in relation to people who are charged with rape or attempted rape. Can we ask the Scottish Government for its position on that?

Can we also ask whether the draft guidance on collecting data on sex and gender has been updated or finalised since it was published in December 2020, and whether there are plans to consider the potential need for further revision of the guidance following those recent rulings?

I would like us also to contact Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. As you stated, convener, we need to be clear about whether they have a clear and transparent policy relating to the data that they collect and the use that they put it to. Importantly, has that policy been equality impact assessed and is the equality impact assessment a public document? Have they defined in a clear statement how data is collected in relation to the sex of people who are charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape and how it is used?