Chamber and committees

Thank you for that. Two key stakeholders have given feedback—I will leave that with you.

My final question is on rural proofing, which was explored last week. The definition of that was new to me, but it resonated with me. Dr Hosie raised it when she talked about the geographical and gender inequalities that are occurring through the centralisation of healthcare services, which has a huge impact. If you are to provide leadership, you should look at the healthcare portfolio. Dr Hosie said:

“rural proofing ... does not do a satisfactory job when policy starts from a central belt perspective and then the rural aspect is considered, as opposed to thinking about that from the start.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 29 October 2024; c 41.]

We have seen that with the belated rural workforce strategy in the national health service. Will you look at that, minister?

We have had huge feedback on the drive to centralisation. Two examples that were given last week of the impact of that were that women are having to travel huge distances—such as from Forfar to Dundee—to access long-lasting contraception and that abortion rates have increased, as an unintended consequence of certain services being centralised. How will the Scottish Government—how will you—ensure that rural proofing is considered at the start of the budgeting and policy-making process and not at its end, as things are now?

Thank you.

I am interested in the equalities and human rights fund, which has awarded millions of pounds to organisations since 2021. We are going through the budget process, which is an opportunity for you to provide some leadership. The fund provides funding to controversial organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland, which has so far been allocated close to £900,000 of taxpayers’ money. This year, BBC Children in Need withdrew funding to the organisation following reports that a convicted paedophile had contributed to one of its coming-out guides. How is the Scottish Government monitoring the funding that it allocates to equalities organisations to ensure that it is a responsible funder? What is your threshold for withdrawing funding?

It is always important to do stock checks, particularly when you are giving figures of just under a million pounds, and for the Government to provide monitoring and leadership, not just the organisation that provides monitoring. You should be asking whether you are personally satisfied that the taxpayer is getting value for money and that particular organisations—I have given an example of one that has received just under a million pounds—are doing what you, as the minister, want them to do.

Thank you, convener, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a brief remark about this petition on Police Scotland’s controversial policy on recording the sex of offenders, which, until recently, was based on self-ID.

Public interest in the petition has, understandably, been growing, as the convener has said, not least among my constituents in the north-east. That is testament to the tenaciousness and determination of the petitioners Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray from policy collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie.

In September, it shockingly emerged that Police Scotland had justified its data recording policy because it adhered to the force’s

“values of respect, integrity, fairness and human rights whilst promoting a strong sense of belonging.”

In other words, Police Scotland was prioritising the feelings of sex offenders over those of the victims of sexual crime, and to do so was absolutely indefensible. Rape is defined in law as involving penetration by a penis without consent, and it is therefore, by definition, the act of a male body. That is why this matters.

As MBM’s submission highlights, Police Scotland appears to have publicly U-turned on that policy, and that is to be welcomed, but questions remain about the application of the policy in the past, and the detail of how Police Scotland will implement this operational change in the future.

Since the petition was lodged in June 2021, which is a considerable time ago, the committee has corresponded with Police Scotland on several occasions, and I thank you for that. My view is that if we are to get to the bottom of the force’s operational policies on data recording, the committee must urgently invite Police Scotland to give oral evidence. I implore the committee to not close the petition down, please. The Scottish Government has already washed its hands of the issue, so I urge the committee to listen to the voices of women and treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you.

I will bring in Catherine Robertson, who has just referred to that.

We are talking about the qualitative, and you are saying that a lot more work needs to be done on what are basically fields in data collection that need to be defined. Catherine Robertson, do you have a view on that?

Great. As a follow-up, can you expand by explaining how the Scottish Government could have approached the matter differently in relation to the terminology? We have talked about quantitative and qualitative data. In relation to the qualitative, could you outline how the terms “sex”, “gender” and “gender identity” should be defined and applied in the context of the national performance framework? The devil is in the detail, in that regard. I ask Catherine Murphy to start off on that.