Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

Earlier this month, the Court of Session upheld an initial ruling that the legal definition of the word “woman” is not limited to a person of the female biological sex. That means that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate—GRC—is given the same recognition in law as a biological woman.

Current legislation allows a trans woman to obtain a GRC if she has lived in her acquired gender for at least two years, is above the age of 18 and has received a suitable medical diagnosis. If the SNP-Green Government had its way, the process of obtaining a GRC would be made much easier by lowering the minimum age at which one can apply for a certificate to 16, removing the need for a medical diagnosis and significantly reducing to only three months the time period for which an applicant must have lived in the required gender. That would fundamentally change the definition of the word “woman” and would expand who would be eligible to sit on corporate boards as a woman.

Around this time last year, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, wrote that the Scottish Government must,

“as a minimum, await the outcome of judgments on these very issues in front of both the Scottish and UK courts”,

including the judgment in the case of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, before moving forward with the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

My Scottish Conservative colleagues repeatedly warned that the SNP Government’s gender self-identification bill would make it significantly easier to change legal gender. Now, as a result of the latest court ruling, the SNP Government is being forced to remove the definition of the word “woman” from the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Just as with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, we are having to use up parliamentary time and resources to fix a piece of poorly drafted legislation. Taxpayers have already had to foot an almost £230,000 bill for the Government’s legal battles as it has tried to save its flawed gender self-ID bill, which is opposed by a majority of Scots. Now, more time and money will be spent on fixing the SNP Government’s latest mistake.

I hope that Scottish ministers will use this court case to finally learn their lesson.

I will move on to the appeals process. Rosemary Agnew touched on it briefly in the previous tranche of questions. Under the bill, appeals against SLCC decisions would be made not to the Court of Session but to a commission review body of the SLCC itself. I wonder whether that could be seen as the SLCC marking its own homework. Would there be any impact on the independence of the appeals process? I am genuinely interested in that with regard to how we move forward.

Good morning, panel. I will stick with the complaints process aspect. There has been a lot of discussion so far about the complexities. At present, we do not have a complainers fee in Scotland. While I was looking ahead to today’s committee session, I looked at examples in other countries. In South Australia, there is a complainers fee of £60, which I believe is returned to the complainer if they are successful. Given the pressures in the complaints system, including the delays and complexities that have already been discussed with the panel, has the SLCC thought about or discussed such a fee? We probably already know what the cons might be, but what are the pros and cons? I will start with Neil Stevenson.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, panel.

The truth is that many children are in learning settings that do not suit their needs. Parents have contacted me to say that, due to long waiting lists for ASN diagnosis, many children are being refused a transfer to ASN specialist schools and nurseries. The fact of the matter is that our school and nursery estates are not equipped to deal with the number of young people who have complex additional support needs. ASN parent councils in my region have raised that issue, but their voices are being ignored.

What will this Government do to reduce the time that families spend waiting for an ASN diagnosis? Does the minister agree that a full review of the ASN estate is long overdue?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the support and services available for children and young people with additional support needs in mainstream education across Central Scotland. (S6O-02706)

One of the many interesting aspects of our role as MSPs is learning about incentives that bring cash back to our local communities. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a subject that I do not usually give voice to in the Parliament, which is how Governments reinvest dirty money that is obtained through organised crime.

I am not the only MSP in the chamber who wants the Scottish Government to get tougher on organised crime. We have already heard from our “Crimewatch” champion, Russell Findlay, who, since his election, has made sure that tackling crime is at the forefront of discussions in the chamber.

The cashback for communities scheme has the potential to do a lot of good for young people across Scotland. The £130 million that has been reinvested as a result of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not to be scoffed at, and I know that that money goes directly to young people who are at risk of turning to a life of crime.

Prevention is key when trying to protect young people from a life of crime, and I will always support incentives that are youth led and are targeted in areas where crime rates are higher. It is my understanding that the latest round of funding is for projects that aim to deliver a range of trauma-informed and person-centred services, including those for young people who are more likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour. Given the rise in antisocial behaviour in our town centres and high streets, I am sure that business owners and those who are concerned about such behaviour will be reassured that funding is being used to reduce the problem that many of us experience just now in our communities.

However, money is not just being directed at those types of incentives. The moving forward+ project, which is delivered by the National Autistic Society Scotland’s prospects team, is funded by the cashback for communities scheme. The project supports disadvantaged autistic young people on a path to becoming more engaged and happier citizens, and it reduces the chances of them becoming either the victims or the perpetrators of crime by recognising that each autistic young person has individual needs and aspirations. The project has two routes—one for children aged 10 to 15 who are not engaged with school education, and another for autistic young adults aged 16 to 25 who are not in training, employment or education. The support involves helping individuals to better understand their autism, explore their strengths and develop suitable strategies to help them to become more resilient. It is a wonderful project that benefits so many young people. I have a statistic here: since 2020, the project has supported more than 93 young autistic people.

As I said, the cashback for communities scheme has the potential to do a lot of good, but we should recognise that it is not perfect. I hope that the Government will realise that more can be done to increase the amount of cash that goes back to our communities. Crime should pay, and what better message to send to communities than that the Government backs them? As it stands, the money that has been recovered as a result of the 2002 act does not match the wealth that has been accumulated by criminals in Scotland. For example, as has been pointed out, it was reported in 2022 that £11 million of dirty money had not been paid back—that is £11 million that could be invested directly back into our communities—although I appreciate that that is subject to a review.

The Government must think about how it can recoup as much money as possible from organised crime. As Russell Findlay said, the scheme needs to be audited in order to maximise the amount of money that could be reinstated back into our communities.

Time is tight, so I will conclude. Prevention, which I mentioned earlier, is key, and investment is needed to ensure that effective programmes are rolled out, so I call on the Government to get tougher on crime and to ensure that prevention is at the heart of cashback for communities.

Good morning, panel. Thank you very much for joining us today.

My questions relate to the separation of powers and the respective roles of the executive and the judiciary. What are the panel’s views on the Law Society’s arguments that independent regulation could lead to increased costs and threaten the independence of the legal profession? Do you believe that the regulatory committee is a sufficient guarantee of independence? Perhaps I can start with Brian Inkster.