Chamber and committees

Children in Need, which awarded LGBT Youth Scotland £181,000 over the past five years, has decided to withdraw its funding. The BBC said that its charity has immediately suspended the grant after conducting a thorough review in response to concerns that have been raised by the BBC and others. That comes after the Daily Mail published a damning investigation of LGBT Youth Scotland, whose former chief executive James Rennie was jailed for horrific child sex assaults after he was unmasked as a member of one of Britain’s worst-ever paedophile rings.

I have raised concerns in the chamber about LGBT Youth Scotland and the guidance that it provides to children and young people regarding safeguarding, yet another scandal has now emerged. Convicted paedophile Andrew Easton co-authored guidance with LGBT Youth Scotland on coming out as transgender for children as young as 13. If there is no further case to be answered, why have those safeguarding failings occurred in the first place? Why has Children in Need removed its funding? Why has the Scottish Government not agreed to conduct, at the very least, a review of LGBT Youth Scotland regarding what has happened in recent times?

I want to go back to the point about the human rights remit being too broad. In our various sessions, we have discussed whether the Scottish Human Rights Commission could be reformed in such a way. Is there any situation in which those reforms could bring in more representation for disabled people, or do you think that disabled people will have to continue to fight just to get their voices heard?

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Jeremy. We have talked a lot about advocacy this morning, which is a really important point in relation to your bill. We have also talked about the current Scottish Human Rights Commission, the remit of which, you have stressed, is far too broad. From the communication that you have been having with various groups and organisations to piece your bill together, can you tell us how easy or difficult it is for a disabled person to contact the commission and seek that advocacy just now?

I think that we are both in the same boat, convener.

Good morning. My question relates to local government. We have spoken a lot about collaborative working and partnership between various levels of government. That will, of course, be really important in relation to what happens over the next few years, particularly given the difficult financial challenges that all sectors are experiencing as a result of the levels of funding that are available.

I have always been struck by the different funding streams, or the different ways in which local authorities operate, in relation to their leisure facilities and cultural assets. Some councils use arm’s-length external organisations, while others keep things more in house, if I can use that phrase. Is it difficult for the sector to navigate that as a whole, given that councils are doing different things in different places? Do we need a further review of ALEOs and of how councils are operating their leisure and cultural assets to try to protect them as much as possible? After all, another difficulty that local authorities are having just now concerns the use of ring fencing, which, of course, exposes our leisure and cultural assets, as they are not included within the protected brackets as other sectors are.

I do not know who wants to kick off on that.

I think that we are both in the same boat, convener.

Good morning. My question relates to local government. We have spoken a lot about collaborative working and partnership between various levels of government. That will, of course, be really important in relation to what happens over the next few years, particularly given the difficult financial challenges that all sectors are experiencing as a result of the levels of funding that are available.

I have always been struck by the different funding streams, or the different ways in which local authorities operate, in relation to their leisure facilities and cultural assets. Some councils use arm’s-length external organisations, while others keep things more in house, if I can use that phrase. Is it difficult for the sector to navigate that as a whole, given that councils are doing different things in different places? Do we need a further review of ALEOs and of how councils are operating their leisure and cultural assets to try to protect them as much as possible? After all, another difficulty that local authorities are having just now concerns the use of ring fencing, which, of course, exposes our leisure and cultural assets, as they are not included within the protected brackets as other sectors are.

I do not know who wants to kick off on that.

Thank you very much. I am not sure whether anyone else wants to come in.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment?

I do; it is just a short one. We have rightly spoken about the cultural assets of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee and their cultural significance and importance, but, of course, we have local culture and heritage right up and down our country. North Lanarkshire, which is an area that I represent, is well known for its deep-rooted industrial heritage. How do we level things up when it comes to cultural protection? I can understand why people gravitate to areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, but we do not want to lose the deep-rooted cultural pockets that exist in other areas, which are very important to our history, and which have excellent examples of local museums and other cultural buildings. How do we level things up in that regard?

I also want to ask about our rural communities, which are harder to get to. It is harder for people to visit museums in rural areas. How do we protect the cultural assets of those areas as well? We would not want important cultural assets such as libraries and museums to disappear from more rural areas.

To ask the Scottish Government what impact reductions to mental health budgets will have on child and adult mental health services. (S6O-03699)