³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I would be grateful if you would do that.

If anything positive has come out of the past 18 months, it has been the relationship involving local government, the Scottish Government and the third sector, particularly with regard to homelessness. In Edinburgh, for example, a very positive three-tiered approach was taken, and it really worked. The third sector talks a lot about future proofing its funding. It often receives only one-year funding. Indeed, when I worked in a third sector organisation, whether we got our redundancy notices every December depended on whether we had money coming in the next year. It was not the most ideal place for any organisation to be in. I know that it is difficult to forecast funding, but are you doing any work with your colleagues, particularly Kate Forbes, on a two to three-year funding package for the third sector to allow it to plan things better?

It is a very complex issue. I am not sure that I totally followed your answer, but that is more to do with my understanding. Would it be possible to write back to the committee, putting your response in more layman’s language? If we are seeking to promote benefits that are now devolved to a new agency, I would find it helpful to know who is going to pay for that. I appreciate that the subject is very complex, and that it is not easy to give a one-word answer, but some kind of letter back to the committee would be helpful.

I will follow up a point made by Pam Duncan-Glancy on the divergence in policy. Under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, we diverge in policy on terminal illness. Was there a problem with the DWP at that point? Did it react negatively to that? Is it aware of that divergence? Is there a way we can build a relationship around policy difference? Does it seem to be working okay at the moment?

I have nothing to declare, convener.

I will push you a wee bit on that. I still have not quite worked out what a change of law would mean in criminal law terms. I appreciate that this is a civil matter. Is this more about educating civic society, the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service than it is about seeking to change the law?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for coming along.

In my previous life, I was a church minister; different people from my congregation would come to me looking for counselling, advice and prayer on lots of topics. They would come because they wanted my advice; they approached me and gave their consent for me to do that. Often, it was done with somebody else there, so that it was a safe environment. Under the proposed change in law, would it be illegal for me to pray for somebody, if they asked me to do that? If so, how would the change not affect religious liberty?

Good morning. Thank you for coming here and for the evidence that you have given.

I want to follow a similar line of questioning to that which I had for the previous panel—I am not sure whether you heard that. As I said, I used to be a church minister. People would come to me to talk, for counselling and for prayer, and they would bring a variety of issues. I am seeking a bit more clarity from you on how we protect religious freedoms, such as the right to pray with somebody and the right for someone to talk about their faith and how that works out in practice, while stopping a practice that is clearly wrong. How do we hold that balance? Briefly, how would you write that into law? That is the key thing.

I am acting as a substitute member of the committee today, but I read the evidence from the past couple of meetings, as well as the submissions, which were extremely helpful.

Obviously, many laws already exist that outlaw torture, rape and any forms of abuse. What benefit would a new law have with regard to effective enforcement? Is it simply the case that we need the law that we already have in Scotland to be enforced properly? What added benefit would a new law give? I do not mean this in a bad way, but would a new law be more symbolic, in that it would highlight the issue in the public’s mind, or would it have a better legal effect in bringing about more prosecutions, where that would be appropriate?

It might be helpful if you could write to the committee on that, because I would be interested in hearing about where the gaps are in the present criminal law. I absolutely take Barbara Bolton’s point about the taking a more holistic approach, but I think that it would be interesting for the committee and the Parliament to know where the gaps are in the criminal law. I appreciate that that is quite a broad question that you will not be able to answer today, but if either of you could write to the committee on that, I would find that beneficial.

I will start with Jen Ang, if that is okay. You will have heard the previous witnesses being asked this question. Obviously, and as you have described, we already have lots of laws in Scotland. Many are to protect people from torture, rape and other forms of abuse. The previous witnesses said that there are still gaps in the law that legislation such as we are discussing could fill. I do not want to put you on the spot, but can you outline some of the gaps and how the legislation would fill them?