Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 9 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1978 contributions

|

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

I remind the member that we had a free vote in our party.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

But that would not be in the bill.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Can you clarify the point that you made about notaries public? I presume that that referred to witnesses of declarations of living in the acquired gender. Who are those notaries public? Do they include city councillors?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Thank you, cabinet secretary. So—despite some murmurs from your officials to the side—city councillors can be included in that.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Although I understand the motive for Carol Mochan’s amendment 117—to try to implement a safeguard in the process—we will not support it, as we cannot envisage that NHS or other services will miraculously improve, because the Scottish Government’s reforms of self-identification will open up our medical services and the other services included in Carol Mochan’s amendment to a wider group of people, therefore putting them under more pressure.

Christine Grahame’s amendments are creative but ill thought through. How can we, as elected members in this place, guarantee that young people who are at a vulnerable age generally receive the support that they need? I am disappointed that the Scottish Government is attempting to use young people as collateral damage to water down the bill to appease their own Scottish National Party rebels.

I am disillusioned by the cabinet secretary’s sceptical approach. The Cass review is a key piece of work. The cabinet secretary has not taken heed of the interim review. I agree, however, that we should consider what the full review says.

Living in an acquired gender for at least three months is an arbitrary figure, plucked from nowhere, without evidence, like the other three-month figure in the bill.

Martin Whitfield’s amendments are flawed, because they presume that the registrar general has the ability to determine capacity, which is something that was never explored in evidence during conversations on the statutory declaration.

On a positive note, I welcome the offer from Fulton MacGregor and Pam Duncan-Glancy to work together in the future.

I press amendment 18.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Tess White for their constructive amendments. We are happy to support the introduction of asylum seekers to the bill, as asylum seekers can be classified as “ordinarily resident” in Scotland. I also urge members to support my colleague Tess White’s amendment, which would strengthen the definition of the term “ordinarily resident” to provide clarity for everyone, including asylum seekers.

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Petition

Meeting date: 9 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

My colleague Ariane Burgess asked a question about high nature value land and biodiversity. Morag, you have just mentioned looking at the funding depending on what needs to be protected in terms of that value. You did not describe it as such, but Patrick Krause describes it in that way. I wonder how NatureScot came up with the criteria. Are they based on the number of geese that are predicted in the count; on the loss of value of the crop, because you also said that you pay compensation; or on the loss of biodiversity value? You said in your previous answer that they are not based on high nature value. Is there some contradiction there?

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Petition

Meeting date: 9 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

The question is for Rae McKenzie. In an earlier answer, you talked about not having systematic monitoring. I presume that that was about the count, although I am not quite sure what you meant by it and whether I have that right. Could you clarify that?

Also, given the dire threat of avian flu right now and the fact that NatureScot has already set up a surveillance network for it, is there any plan for NatureScot to merge the two activities to monitor what has been effective in the pilot projects on control of migratory birds and the natural deaths of migratory birds through avian flu? To my mind, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Petition

Meeting date: 9 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Thank you. That was really helpful. Because the matter is part of our remit, it would be useful for the committee to understand what plans NatureScot develops with the academics.

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Petition

Meeting date: 9 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

I would like a little more detail on the letter that Patrick Krause sent. I am not sure whether you have seen it, Morag. In the final paragraph, he says:

“Financial support has to be more equitable, for example, the Islay Goose Management Scheme has a budget of around £1m per year”,

but, in my head, that does not really equate with the figures that you have given. Will you explain what that budget covers? You just talked about people with expertise in corralling coming up from England and about other methods possibly needing more expertise. In comparison, Patrick Krause says that

“Uist receives zero amount directly from NatureScot.”

How is that funding broken down, and could it be made equitable?