Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear your commitment to consult and engage with the trade unions. Will you say a little more about that? There is a commitment to

“consult on applying conditionality to public funding”,

and to consulting businesses, including discussions on a requirement for public disclosure on climate change and its impacts. What work is on-going with workers and the trade unions? Sometimes they may be closer to understanding the levers that we need to have access to and which we need to use.

I thank everybody for their comments so far—it has been an interesting discussion.

I want to pick up on and maybe tease out some of the issues and the connections between them. We have talked about the problem of data and the issue of being cautious about the shiny new thing, which I totally get. Chris Birt talked about the need to have a clear vision of where we want to get to. We have the technical language of a minimum core or what it means to live in dignity, but do we have a shared understanding of that? If not, what work do we need to do to ensure that we have an understanding of that across the different sectors and priority groups or other demographics, so that we can make sure that we collect the right data and deliver the right kind of vision, and that we are not sidetracked into the mysticism of it all?

I thank the panel for joining us and for their contributions so far. My question extends some of what underlay Karen Adam’s question. You have all picked up in different ways on how we look at rights as they apply—or should apply—to different groups. We know that we lack some of the data that we need and we know that we lack a common understanding. As we develop this work—we are only starting it—over the next few years, and as we incorporate other human rights obligations through the incorporation into Scots law of the international conventions and treaties that we desire to incorporate, how can we use that to give us better frameworks or tools for analysis and delivery? I understand that there is a mismatch, as you have all said in different ways, between the rhetoric, the ambition and implementation. What does the incorporation of additional human rights frameworks allow us to do, and to do differently?

Thank you, convener—I am sorry to jump in again like this.

My question is probably most appropriately directed at Andrew Richards, who talked about the race to the bottom and the shift in risk from the public sector to the private sector, and about the need for investment in the construction industry more generally. What could the Scottish Government do to mitigate some of that shifting risk? I am thinking about some of the broader issues around driving up demand, such as the need for retrofitting and house building. Is there space for a national construction company, or something like that, which would allow us to focus and target investment and therefore limit the risk shift that you describe?

I am sorry to cut across you like that, Mr Burnett.

Andrew Richards talked about the circular economy. I am thinking of some kind of local content requirement, not only to shorten supply chains but—importantly—to catalyse local manufacturing. Should the Scottish Government be looking at something in that space to ensure that we have the drivers in place to support local manufacturing and—if demand is the issue—to drive up demand for it?

I thank you for what you have said so far, Ewan. Can you say a bit more about how the SRC, and the businesses that you support and work with, see the changing nature of the high street?

Before the pandemic, we saw significant moves around local identity and place making on the high street. You talked about protecting the high street and encouraging consumers back in. What should we be doing to support and encourage local businesses such as retailers to generate places where people want to be? Getting consumers back on the high street is about not only financial incentives, but place making. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the changing nature of the high street.

I have a second question, in which I will seek to draw out some of what Barbara Bolton has just said. What is your response to the suggestion that medical practitioners and psychotherapists could be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person’s gender identity? There is an issue around the balance between consent and affirmation, which can be seen as blurred. Even in law, we cannot legislate for blurred lines.

Thank you both for coming today, and for your powerful and informative contributions, previously and this morning. I am very mindful of the view that we should stop talking and get on. I share somewhat your frustration at the fact that we are still talking about the issue.

Igi Moon talked about the importance of intersectionality. Thank you for raising that issue, because I do not think that we have previously heard the matter being articulated in that way.

My questions draw on strands of what Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour talked about earlier—in particular, medical professionals, in which I include the full range of healthcare professionals from clinical and medical professionals to psychotherapeutic professionals. How do we provide clarity on what is and is not allowed in respect of that setting being the safe space that you mentioned, and in relation to therapists being able to allow challenging and confusing exploration with patients, clients and survivors? I am interested to hear how you think our definition in law will impact on that.

I will draw on the evidence that you have produced about medical professionals practising conversion therapy. What sanctions do they face? Does the practice largely go unchallenged because of fear of discussing it?

Thank you—that is helpful.