 Good morning and welcome to this. The second meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee for 2016. As you know, you should use tablet device and if you could put them on silent place, as they interfere with broadcasting. First agenda item is a declaration of interest, and that declaration the day is from our member, David Torrance. David! source EnterTube It conventionally obviously has no relevant interest to declare. Thank you very much, moving on to the substantive piece of work, a the work Felly hyn yn dangos i siwrtedw trimming idio cymíu, rydym wedi los wasriadon o Wasriadau who is the head of equality, human rights and the third sector director at the Scottish Government. Cabinet secretary, can we thank you for your letter to committee because it allows us to set the scene and where we want to go. I know that we only have 45 minutes with you today and you have already done quite a detailed session this morning, and we are very grateful that you could come along and speak to us today. I am going to just give you quite a wide-ranging opening question and then go to members questions that way until I was to get the most out of it. I have explained to the members about concise questions and we would probably appreciate concise answers and we could get the most out of this morning for all of us in that respect. We know that we have a lot to say in this area and we appreciate that very much. My opening question is essentially what is your Government's priorities. However, I need to caveat that with how are those priorities now, given the potential withdrawal from the European Union and the subsequent impact that that would have with calls for a repeal of the Human Rights Act and a withdrawal from ECHR? I am not known for my brevity, but I am going to start by saying three things and members will have the opportunity to question me about various manifestor commitments made over the peace by the Government. First, I want to say that the equalities in human rights is a function of this Government and all ministers and all our partners across the public sector have that responsibility. We have a good top-level manifestor commitment about doing more to embed our obligations. What I want to do in the weeks and months ahead is to ensure that, as we are discussing equalities in human rights, as much as possible we are doing that in plain English. A lot of this debate and narrative can be quite philosophical, not saying that that's a bad thing. It can be quite legal, not saying that that's a bad thing, but given events over the past week with the Brexit vote, we will have to be making a very strong defence of the Human Rights Act, for example. I believe that it's beholden on all of us to explain how human rights are relevant to everyone and in their day-to-day experience of life. We have to be making this relevant to folks' lives. In terms of Brexit, everybody here will have heard First Minister's statement and will have seen events unfold over the past week, and I'm not going to repeat any of that, but there is that uncertainty. We don't, as yet, know the consequences or the fallout in terms of how that economic uncertainty will impact on public finances, for example. I suppose that, in terms of the immediate future, while we are still part of Europe, as things stand, there are no imminent changes other than the uncertainty about the future and the impact that that will have on public sector finances. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We're going to go to some specific topics, and each member has their own issues that they want to raise with him. I'm going to go to Jeremy Balfour. Good morning, minister. I thank you for your statement that came to us, which was very helpful. I have two questions that are slightly different, but if I can take the first one, it's on page three of your statement in regard to tackling hate crime. I think that we all welcome the progress that has been made on this, but a number of groups have spoken to me from different areas to say, would it be possible for the Government to look at some kind of review of how people are treated who have had a hate crime against them? We have information about how many cases go to the fiscal, but post that, there's little information in regard to that, and also how people are treated when they first approach for police, and also in regard to, at the end, whether sheriffs do take a greater role in sentencing because it is a hate crime. I think that, certainly, disabled groups and other sectors would like maybe some kind of case study of people who have gone through that and their experience and how it is working. Clearly, we need quite a lot of work, but, in principle, is that something that the Scottish Government would be willing to look at? I think that the importance of case studies and bringing to life examples of what people have experienced in being the victim of a hate crime, but also, crucially, in terms of how the authorities, not least the police, have responded to that. I know that Police Scotland has very clear commitments in and around equalities training, and we want police officers and others to understand what hate crime is, what the law says, and to be sensitive and appropriate when they are dealing with reports of that nature. You are right to raise the issue of tackling hate crime, because it is one of our key priorities. Race hate crime remains the biggest category, although it has fallen a little bit over the year, but it accounts for the majority of hate crimes, and we have seen a 20 per cent increase in LGBTI crimes as well. There has been some variation, although smaller numbers, in terms of Islamophobia crimes against disabled people have seen an increase in crimes against transgender people as well. Although those increases in figures are not good news, we have to be clear that we want people to report hate crimes, so we need to have that nuanced understanding of what the statistics are absolutely saying to us. I look forward to working with the committee and members about how we can improve our understanding and, indeed, a scrutiny of how others are exercising their duties. We will take that away and give it some further thought. The second area is quite different from that. We obviously had an interesting debate yesterday afternoon about lots of things around equality, in particular in regard to the number of people who should be on boards 50-50. My party may take a different view on that at the moment, but if we are going to go down that road, if that is where the Scottish Government is going to go, should we not be looking at other areas as well? For example, one in five people are disabled in Scotland, should they have representation on boards to that percentage? Should people who come from different racial minorities have representation on boards? Why are we focusing on one area and not on all areas of equality? A positive note from the debate yesterday was that there was agreement across the political divide that diversity is good and that diversity in positions of leadership and those who are on boards make decisions about public resources and how public services are delivered that that is a good thing. There is a difference of opinion on how best to achieve that. In terms of gender equality, women are more than half the population. We have waited a long time, but I take your point that if we are committed to diversity and equality, it has to apply to everybody. There is no silver bullet. We are not pretending that gender inequality will be solved overnight because we introduced quotas on public sector boards. We need that comprehensive action that starts in the early years because all the way through to women's experience in the labour market and indeed older women's experience of the labour market. However, it is something that I fundamentally believe and it is no secret that I am a supporter of the 50-50 campaign. I think that it is an issue whose time has come, but that does not mean that we are close to other ideas about how to improve diversity and equality across the field. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. I start by asking you about gypsy travellers. The cabinet secretary will know that in session 4 there were two inquiries into gypsy travellers and I was the convener of this committee when those inquiries were done. Anecdotal evidence tells me that there has been little or no progress in relation to the condition of sites that gypsy travellers live on and the provision of sites for gypsy travellers. Access to care for gypsy travellers has shown very little improvement and indeed the discrimination that gypsy travellers face has not improved at all. I am aware that our national strategy for gypsy travellers is to be published and I wonder if you could give us an update on the progress of that and what further work you think is necessary in relation to gypsy travellers. I think that it is fair to say that there is a lot of further work needed in and around issues that impact on gypsy travellers. As a Government, we recognise that they are a distinct ethnic group and we encourage others to do so. We certainly recognise and pay tribute to the previous work that was done by the committee in this area. Mary Fee is right to touch on the fact that the work on the strategy did pause in 2015 to allow for a period of reflection and that came as a result of concerns from the Gypsy Traveller Strategy Development Group. Sometimes we need to pause things as opposed to carrying on regardless. Other work continues in relation to education and traveller sites, but we are happy to be thinking further about how we take that work forward. I do not have a definitive answer about what we will do when, other than a very honest recognition, we will have much more work to do. I would rather work that was paused as opposed to us carrying on in a careless or a regardless fashion. I want to take stock of that work so that, on a future date, I can come back to committee and point to a direction of travel. I mean, if there are particular issues or aspects or route maps that members wish to pursue, I am sure that you will not be shy in coming forward. Will the national strategy be published later in the year? That is a possibility, but I want to really immerse myself in some of the issues before giving a final commitment. I want the national strategy to be right. I do not want to publish something that is going to be that we cannot take people on board with us. You will be aware that the Gypsy Traveller community is very keen to see progress made. Any kind of signal that there are further delays only diminishes the faith that the Gypsy Traveller community has and that change will actually be made? We will take that on board so that there is a frustration and that any more needless delay would send out the strongest signal, but maybe it is something that I can come back to committee about after some of your sessions. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. It is to do with the same Gypsy Travellers and the lack of sites. How do we encourage local authorities to provide them? In many instances that I have dealt with, it is a lack of these sites that are a conflict between the Gypsy Travellers and the local communities that causes a problem. That is a good point. I know that there were changes in the legislation that goes back 10 years that changed the obligations on local authorities. Can I ask Yvonne if she has any detail on that? My memory is a bit scratchy. There are two things. First of all, there are requirements on local authorities and their local housing strategies to take account of Gypsy Travellers' needs as part of those requirements. And certainly that has been expected of our local authorities. In 2014, there was revised guidance on the housing need and demand assessments for local housing strategies to take account of the fact that there have been those concerns. That was to make sure that the accommodation needs of Gypsy Travellers are fully taken into account by councils as they plan accommodation provision in their area. I think that the expectation was that that would help to drive forward a different approach on local authorities. In May 2015, the Scottish Government published minimum quality standards for Gypsy Traveller sites and called rights and responsibilities for site tenants, and those were developed with Gypsy Traveller site tenants, local authorities and other stakeholders. The responsibility for sites rests with local government, but the Scottish Government recognises what it can do in order to encourage that, and through its relationship around housing and accommodation sites, that is the process that has been used to date. I know that there is legislation there, but from my experience, the lackey sites councils are reluctant to provide them. Can we have an update on how many new sites have been provided by the 32 local authorities and how many are needed? I know that, in the area that I represent, we have a huge problem with lackey sites for Gypsy Traveller. The only question that I have to add to is that the housing strategies have said that there is only an expectation, or is there a duty? There is a duty for local authorities to consider the needs of ethnic minorities as part of their development of strategic approaches, and the guidance expects that, in that process, Gypsy Travellers will be part of those considerations. Expectation holds much less weight than a duty, so that is where we need to get that to find. If you can update the committee, that would be very helpful. To ask a further brief question, and it is on gender recognition. I wonder if you could update us on when you intend to review gender recognition law, because you will be aware that the Transgender Alliance is calling for a reduction in the age from 18 to 16, and the removal of psychiatric diagnosis. Where are you with a view to the two things? We will spend the rest of the year speaking to stakeholders with a view to consultant in the first half of 2017. There is a very clear commitment from the Government that we want to review gender recognition law in line with best practice, and there is unanimity on that across the chamber. I think that all parties have a commitment to that. There are, indeed, some complexities and some issues that we will need to look at in depth in terms of the role of doctors and the preponderance of a medical model, if you like, and the issues around age will have to be looked at very closely. We want to have that in-depth discussion and dialogue with a range of stakeholders, with a view to having a consultation next year. For the committee's interests, the UK Government, David Mundell, has intimated to me that this is an area that the UK Government is looking at and we have informally commenced that dialogue about how any provisions could dovetail, because, although it is largely devolved, it could feed into areas that are reserved. We want to have a pragmatic discussion with the UK Government as well. David Mundell has a commitment to make progress in that area, too. That is very useful. Thank you for that update. I think that it is very welcome. Two additional things for me would be, obviously, some of the challenges to this in the past have been that we cannot change it because it would never impact on pensions. If you are saying then that David Mundell and the UK Government, that is an issue that might not be such a huge issue. The other issue for me was a specific constituency case. Someone who wants to have their medical records changed to reflect the fact that she is a woman would be something that that consultation would look at, is that right? I mean, it will have to be a very broad-ranging consultation. That is why I want to take a bit of time talking to stakeholders so that the consultation is crafted and covers all the bases. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I start by declaring an interest that I am an outgoing member of the leadership panel of the Scottish National Action Plan on Human Rights. I am also a past convener of Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much for coming to see us, and thank you for your paper. I have two specific questions that I will take each and turn. First, I think that all of us were caused to reflect after the atrocity in Orlando as to how, in public policy, we still discriminate in any vestiges against the LGBT plus community. To that end, could you perhaps outline the Scottish Government's consideration of any areas where we still in public policy discriminate against that community and, in particular, the ban on blood donation? I mean, I will get back to you on the specifics and on the blood donation. It might be something that health ministers are more useful for them to correspond with the committee on, but I think that the broad point that the atrocities at Orlando, the impact that that has had on the LGBTI community here, as you alluded to underlines, is that the on-going need to really embed human rights and international treaties in practice and how we make that a reality for any community and how it really works for people on the ground. Secondly, in page 4 of your report, you talk about the successful reports that the Scottish Government has already given in terms of a strong account on our efforts to implement our obligations to particularly the UN convention on the rights of the child. In two areas, I think that we still struggle. Firstly, the actual practical application of children's rights, particularly at a local authority level, we are seeing the decline in the number of children's rights officers employed in local authorities, and still reporting isn't perhaps as we envisaged it when we passed the part 1 of the Children and Young People Act. Similarly, without full incorporation, children still don't have access to justice in terms of the abuses against their rights. Secondly, as a supplemental to that, can you give an idea as to where the Scottish Government is in terms of physical punishment? We will forever be out of step with our obligations to the UN convention on the rights of the child, while we still legitimately allow violence against children in the home. Mr Cole-Hamilton will be aware of our manifesto commitment to embed and give further effect to international treaties. He rightly points to the fact that we openly put ourselves forward for scrutiny. We welcome the opportunity to be scrutinised at UN committees. A challenge and a debate for the next Parliament will be, in the words of the First Minister, how we give better effect to international treaties in Scotland. Issues around incorporation are important. They don't always necessarily lead to better policy, because we're relying on human beings and politicians and people implementing treaties, but we recognise that they are indeed important. In terms of the Children and Young People Act, there was an on-going legislative commitment to review the impact of how we were all given further meaning and further realisation to the rights of children and international treaties. That debate isn't over. As a Government, we and education ministers will certainly have to be accounting for that and reporting back. I am aware of the concerns about the decreasing number of children's rights officers in terms of smacking. I know that that was an issue of great interest to Alison McInnes and to many members across the chamber. Mr Cole-Hamilton will know that the Government is not in favour of smacking. We don't encourage it. We have tried to support people to be aware of other ways to inform and shape the behaviour of the children. There is evidence that smacking can be harmful. The Government doesn't support smacking in any shape or form. We have had some concerns or reticence about whether we needlessly criminalise parents for smacking or lightly smacking and how that could be detrimental to family life. However, as with all matters about how we improve the lives of children and their rights, we protect them. Those are all very live issues. I am sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton will pick up on the good work and the genuine interest that Alison McInnes had in that area. I absolutely agree that we need to take out of party politics and look towards furthering their interests to children if we are genuinely to achieve that shared ambition of making Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. We could spend all day arguing about smacking, but I would reflect on one particular point that we remain one of only four countries left in the Council of Europe still not to extend equal protection to children in the eyes of the law. That has not led to criminalisation needlessly of parents in the many European countries who have taken that step already. Furthermore, I think that the Scottish Government are to be applauded on the work that they have done on children's rights, but I think that it has not gone far enough. There was a draft piece of legislation in the last parliamentary session, which was a standalone act or bill on the rights of children and young people, which was then conflated into the Children and Young People Act to become part one and moved us from a position where we were going to have due regard and actual justice ability around the UNCRC to a very watered down commitment for ministers to raise awareness of the UNCRC. Frankly, I do not think that that is ambitious enough and I think that we will be forever making excuses to the UN committee on the rights of the child until we actually get serious on this. I am not sure if Mr Kohan is looking me to respond to his statement or not, and I am conscious that the convener instructed me for brevity. I think that it is probably the simplest thing to say without going over the history of the Children and Young People Act and how two specific acts became one act and all that. If we can point to the positive that the act has very specific requirements on government to constantly be reviewing how we put in practice children's rights and the debate in and around many aspects of how we improve the lives of children and how we enhance and protect their rights is not a debate that is over. I note Mr Kohan's indication of on-going parliamentary interest. Willie Coffey. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to talk about the broader legislative landscape that we might find ourselves in after last week's decision. As you are well aware, equalities and human rights are pretty much embedded in everything that the Scottish Parliament does. All our legislation complies with European Union laws and frameworks and so on. Post brings it if it happens. Do you see us in the Scottish Parliament having to try to unpick much of our legislation at that stage, or do you see that the Scottish Parliament can maintain their legislative framework that we currently have to remain consistent with those principles that are enshrined in European law? I am really going to struggle to answer that question with any brevity convener. I will take my guidance from you. There are three different things at play. The Government is a strong defender of the current human rights act. Any suggestion that it