The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on update on Scottish Government review of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions and no interruptions. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, 15 minutes please, cabinet secretary. In my statement today, I want to set out the background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the case for its reform. I will also consider the relationship between gender recognition legislation and the Equality Act 2010 and outline the steps that the Government intends to take next, both to deliver dignity for trans men and women and to continue to address concerns raised about, for example, access to women's only spaces. First the background to the 2004 act and the case for reform. In 2002, the European Court of Human Routes found the UK to have breached the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the lack of legal recognition afforded to trans people. The Parliament therefore enacted the 2004 act, which this Parliament agreed through a sole motion. As a result, trans men and women were, for the first time, given the right to seek legal recognition of their lived gender. If they were born in the UK, they would access an updated birth certificate and to do so without undergoing gender reassignment surgery or medical treatment. The 2004 act was, at the time, groundbreaking. However, over time, there have been growing recognition that the process enshrined in that act, which requires applications to be considered by a gender recognition panel, to be overly complex and medicalised. For those who are using it, the process can be deeply traumatic and stressful. In recommending reform of the act in January 2016, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee stated that the current process, and I quote, runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. Given that, my party had a commitment in our 2016 manifesto to review and reform gender recognition law and bring into line with international best practice. Every other political party represented in this Parliament made a similar manifesto commitment. The UK Government has also recognised the complexities of the system and, in 2018, consulted on reforming the law in England and Wales. There are two points that are worth stressing. First, gender recognition has been in place since 2005. It is not new. The issue that we are debating is the reform of that process by which the right to gender recognition is exercised—a matter that I will return to shortly. Second, in reforming gender recognition law, Scotland will not in any sense be leading the way or taking action that is unprecedented. On the contrary, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and Norway are among the countries that have already adopted new gender recognition processes similar to those that we have consulted on. Let me now turn to the relationship between gender recognition law and the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010, which has reserved legislation, provides protections from discrimination, victimisation and harassment on the basis of protected characteristics, including sex and gender reassignment. Across all parts of society, those rights are hard won and must be protected. One particular area of concern that has been raised about gender recognition reform, both during and since the consultation, is the impact that it will have on the provision and protection of single sex or women-only spaces and services. It is vital to be clear on that important point. The Equality Act 2010 already allows trans people to be excluded in some circumstances from single sex services where that is proportionate and justifiable, including where a trans person has legal recognition. The Government's proposals to reform the gender recognition act will not affect that position. This Government wants to protect and promote the rights of women, and we want to protect and promote the rights of trans people too. I am a feminist and I am deeply and rightly proud that this Government has taken such clear and concerted action to protect women's rights and to promote gender equality. I have stated before, as has the First Minister, that I do not feel a conflict between my support for women's rights and for trans rights, but I know and I understand that many do. It is important that we listen to and importantly address those concerns. Of course, at their core, those concerns are not about trans women, rather they are about men who seek to abuse women. The fear is that some men will misuse trans equality to access women and to do us harm. I understand that. I understand that predatory men will always seek to find ways to harm women. That is not a new problem in Scottish or global society, nor is it a problem that is created by or the fault of the trans community. This Government has a duty to address the concern that reforming the process for gender recognition will increase the risks that women face from men. That is something that I have sought to do already and will continue to do as we seek to build confidence that achieving equality and dignity for trans men and women is possible without diminishing the rights of anyone else. In my view, an important aspect of that is to be clear about what the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act actually entails and, just as importantly, what it does not entail. Let me move now to our proposed next steps. As members are aware, in 2018, the Scottish Government held a 16-week public consultation. It sought views on the proposal that, for applicants for gender recognition, the existing requirements to provide medical information and evidence that they have lived in the required gender for at least two years be removed. Over 15,500 responses were received, and 49 per cent of responses came from Scotland. 60 per cent of all responses and 65 per cent of those from Scotland were in favour of reform. However, some groups raised concerns, and since the closure of the consultation additional issues, many, not in fact directly related to the bill's proposals, have also been raised. I have taken time to listen and to understand those concerns. I have also heard the counts of the anxiety and trauma that the current process causes trans people and the difference that reform of the law would make to their ability to live their lives with dignity and acceptance. I will now set out our proposed way forward. Let me be very clear that the Scottish Government remains committed to reforming the 2004 act and ensuring the process for trans people to access a gender recognition certificate is in line with international best practice, and, more importantly, it does not result in any unnecessary stress. However, I am acutely aware of how divided opinion is on this issue, and I want to proceed in a way that builds maximum consensus and allows valid concerns to be properly addressed. For that reason, we will not introduce legislation to Parliament immediately. Instead, it is my intention to publish a draft gender recognition Scotland bill later this year. The bill will be formally introduced to Parliament only when there has been full consultation on the precise details contained in that draft bill. That consultation will include draft impact assessments, including a comprehensive updated equality impact assessment, to ensure that all rights are protected in a balanced way. This additional step in the process will, I hope, give Parliament and all stakeholders the opportunity to consider and respond to specific proposals, and it will allow discussions to move from the general to the detailed. All aspects of the draft bill will be open for consultation. We will take forward the legislation when that process has taken place, and we are content that responses have been analysed, concerns are laid, and that we can introduce a bill that has the support of this Parliament and of the public. We will inform Parliament of the timetable for legislation once that process has been completed. Let me now outline some of the key provisions that will be in that draft bill for consultation. Existing requirements in the 2004 act to provide medical evidence will be removed. However, it is important to stress that the current requirements will be replaced by an alternative statutory process. The term self-identification is routinely used, but in my view, that does not adequately reflect the seriousness or the permanency of the process envisaged. As now, applicants will be required to make a solemn statutory declaration that they intend to live in their acquired gender permanently. In addition, applicants will be required to state in the statutory declaration that they have already been living in their acquired gender. Currently, applicants for a gender recognition certificate are required to have been living in their acquired gender for a minimum of two years. It is the opinion of the Scottish Government that that should be reduced. Our initial proposal will be for three months, but again, that will be fully consulted on. The draft bill will propose that, after an application for gender recognition has been made and has been checked to ensure that the necessary information and statutory declaration have been provided, there will be a mandatory three-month reflection period before a gender recognition certificate can be granted. At the end of this period, an applicant will need to confirm that they still wish to proceed. Applicants will need to have lived in their acquired gender for at least six months before a gender recognition certificate can be granted. It is and will remain a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration the potential punishment for which it includes up to two years imprisonment. Retaining the requirement for a statutory declaration, being clear of false declaration is a criminal offence, and building in time for reflection enshrines in law the seriousness of the process. No one should doubt that that is a significant undertaking and requires the same level of commitment from the individual as the existing system does. The draft bill will not propose legal gender recognition for those under 16, though we will consider further whether the minimum age of applicants should be reduced from 18 to 16. The consultation will also seek views on what support is needed generally for children and young people and certain of their gender identity. Central to this is ensuring that all young people have access to support from a trusted adult who they know will listen sympathetically and without judgment, whether that be from a third sector organisation or mental health and wellbeing service. I have heard directly from young trans people of the fear that they face, and our mental health and wellbeing strategy sets out that we must have a country where people can get the right help at the right time, free from discrimination and stigma. That must be true for those who are querying their gender identity just as it should be for all young people. I do not intend at this time to extend legal gender recognition to non-binary people, but we recognise the need to address the issues that non-binary people face. I intend to establish a working group to consider possible changes to procedures and practice and what we can learn from best practice internationally as well as from within Scotland and the rest of the UK. As I said earlier, it is clear that not all of the concerns raised over the past years relate to the specifics of the proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act. Instead, they are about wider societal and policy issues connected to sex and gender. We recognise that unless we build a strong foundation of clear policy and guidance, then many concerns, particularly from some women, will not be a lead, while at the same time trans rights may not be upheld. Equally, it is important that we ensure policies that we put in place, protect the rights of different groups of people and avoid what may appear to be some rights taking precedence over others. Everyone in Scotland deserves to know that this Government will work to promote their rights and protect them from discrimination. It is not enough for me to just say that it is our aim. We must demonstrate that commitment in a way that everyone can have trust in. That Government will therefore develop guidance that helps to bring clarity to those issues and ensures that policy makers and service providers better understand how to ensure that the hard-won rights of both women and trans people can be collectively realised. That will be used across the Scottish Government and available to all public authorities to help to inform policy development and implementation. It will also of course be publicly available. I can confirm that the type of approach to policy development is being used by the Scottish Government on guidance for schools. We recognise that this is a complicated area, and the recent guidance for schools from LGBT youth Scotland on transgender young people was produced in good faith and with wide consultation and engagement, with a clear intention of supporting teachers to ensure that all transgender and non-binary children and young people are safe, supported and included in their schools. However, the complexity of those issues mean that valid concerns have been raised. The Scottish Government recognises that, in taking the inarguably good general principle of inclusivity and developing specific recommendations, the approach risks potentially excluding other girls from female only spaces, and that cannot be right. We have therefore decided to replace the LGBT youth work with guidance from the Scottish Government. That work is already under way and will be available by the end of the year and be subject to an equality impact assessment. In addition, I want to take this opportunity to begin to address an issue that was raised by some women's groups during the consultation—the collection, disaggregation and use of data by sex and gender. The issue does not result specifically from gender recognition, but there is some overlap, and it has also received increased prominence following the publication of the book Invisible Women by Caroline Carrado-Perez. The book has drawn attention to the frequency with which data is neither collected nor aggregated in a way that takes account of the differences, including biological and physical differences, between men and women and the impact of that in areas such as transport, health and access to services. I can therefore announce that the Scottish Government will establish a working group on sex and gender and data comprise of professionals from across statistical services. That will be led by a report to the chief statistician. The working group will consider what guidance should be offered to public bodies on the collection of data on sex and gender, including what form data collection and disaggregation is most appropriate in different circumstances. The debate in relation to gender recognition has raised a wide number of issues. The aim of this Government is to ensure that trans people in Scotland enjoy equality and feel safe and accepted for who they are. We want to achieve that, and we believe that we can do so in a way that does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. Those issues need to be considered carefully, openly, thoughtfully and respectfully. A process of deliberation that is taken forward in such a way will, in my view, enable us to bring forward balanced and evidence proposals and legislation that can be agreed on by this Parliament and supported by the public. I will continue to engage and listen to stakeholders and I will maintain my open door policy to all MSPs. I will carry out my role to protect all rights and promote equality for all respectfully. I hope that, in the coming months, everyone in this chamber will do the same and that, just as this Parliament has found consensus in the past, we will be able to do so again. I am happy to take questions. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement and I will allow up to 30 minutes for that. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask the question would press their request-to-speak buttons now, please. Thank you to the cabinet secretary for the early sight of her statement. I am very pleased to see that we have seen an update from the Scottish Government on that. I am sure that I speak for all members when I say that this topic has raised strong feelings from all sides and that there has been very high volume of correspondence. What I wish to put on record today and what I have been saying to all constituents and interest groups who have contacted me about this is my sincere belief that we need to keep this debate respectful and open. We need to listen to one another so that we can get this right. I welcome the announcement of another consultation. Very often, I think that we forget as politicians that not everyone is aware that such consultations take place and, given the concerns that have been raised, it is sensible that we allowed a wider debate to take place. I also welcome that an equality impact assessment will be carried out. Can I ask the cabinet secretary for more detail on the alternative statutory process as this will be the main focus of the bill? Can I also ask whether there will be any levy on the six-month timeframe cited and whether there will be flexibility in increasing or decreasing it? Can I also ask just roughly when the Scottish Government expects the consultation process to be over and responses published? I begin by thanking Annie Wells for that question and the tone in which we are having this conversation. I see, as we move forward, that this will be a conversation that I will hopefully have with members from across the chamber as we move forward. She is absolutely right to say that this debate has strong feelings from many people, but we need to have that respectful and open debate and listen to each other together. I am sure that if we do that, we can move forward. The consultation is very important because it will allow a wider debate about the detail of what is going on. There has been a lot of speculation about what I am saying today or not saying, and we can now discuss that in detail, which I am certainly very pleased about. The statutory process is, as I laid out in my statement, an issue that is absolutely available and open for that consultation. We will put forward our proposals, such as the six-month timeframe in terms of how long a person should have been living in an acquired gender before application and that period of reflection. However, I am very thoughtful of the lessons that we can learn from international examples and what we can do to ensure that we provide reassurance for those who need that reassurance about how that process works. I look forward to working with Annie Wells and others on the issue as we move forward. Pauline McNeill I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of today's statement, which is comprehensive and I welcome the fact that we have one. I also welcome the opportunity to question the cabinet secretary as a member who scrutinised and supported the 2004 act on gender recognition. Scottish Labour has always been at the vanguard of promoting equality, dignity and respect, and we strongly believe that people should be able to live their lives free from prejudice. I know from my own case work that trans people face prejudice and discrimination every day. It is those principles that will undermine our approach to scrutinising the proposed legislation when it comes forward. We are clear that specialist services for trans people can be improved now without legislation or reduction in the fever or gender recognition certificate, and the processes could be simpler without legislation. I have three questions for the cabinet secretary. In the move to a statutory declaration for gender recognition legislation, is that any thought that has been given to how a false declaration would be established? Secondly, the statement says in the reference to the equality act 2010. It is our view that this applies where a trans person has legal recognition. The Government's proposals to reform the equality act will not affect that position. I just wanted to get an answer in relation to that on page 6. It also says that the consultation will include a draft impact assessment, including a comprehensive updated equality impact assessment. I just wanted to be clear that we cannot draw any conclusions from our equality impact assessment before it is done. Finally, the working group that I welcome on sex and gender data will there be representation of trans people and non-binary people to ensure that scrutiny all the way down is inclusive? Shirley-Anne Somerville I thank Pauline McNeill for those questions and I absolutely recognise the history that Scottish Labour has on equality issues in general, including on that issue. It is also an issue that this Parliament can be exceptionally proud of the work that we have done. I hope with that history that we can find a way forward and move and consensus on that. The aspects of false declarations are, of course, an exceptionally important one. It really is the basis on which I hope that people can have faith and trust in the system that we have. On this and on others, I do not come to the chamber with all the answers today. I am laying forward the Government's proposals and very much this is an open consultation where the direction of travel and the destination of changing the gender recognition reform is set. However, how we do that and the details of how we do that, including around false declarations, I think is very important that we set out. I have tried to do that in the work that we have done about ensuring a period of reflection, of ensuring that it is a statutory declaration that someone is meeting in front for notary public. In terms of the very, very strong prison sentence that is there if there is a false declaration. However, if there are other areas that we can look at, I am more than happy to do so. My comments on the Equality Act and on women's safe spaces are based on what is in the Equality Act, which is reserved and which we will not be asking the UK Government to change and which, from my discussions with the UK Government, it has no intention of changing either. The reassurance that I tried to provide in my statement on women's safe spaces will not be changed by the proposals for change, but it is important that we carry out an equality impact assessment to look at the differences that the reforms that we are proposing will change, but it will not be around the exemptions for single sex services. We have not decided on the make-up of working groups and so on, but I absolutely take the point that it is important that I listen to the trans community, to people who identify as non-binary, to women's groups and so on. How we do that? Again, I am more than happy that Pauline McNeill has specific suggestions on that for us to discuss that later, either in person or in correspondence. Moving now to open questions, the front-bench questions have taken a long time. I know that it is a subject that many people want to ask questions on, so if we could bear that in mind as we move forward. I have Angela Constance followed by Patrick Harvie. The cabinet secretary in her balanced and thoughtful statement reminded us all that all parties represented in this chamber made manifesto commitments to reform the gender recognition act. Given that we cannot have equality for one group and not another, I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could say more about how we will protect and enhance the rights of both transgender people and women without diminishing the rights of either. The Government has an absolute determination to ensure that we have equality for all groups in our community.  It is important that we take action on that, but we need to consider how we support all groups in our society. That is why, as we are moving forward with the proposed changes to gender recognition, we absolutely have to recognise and I have to recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the proposals for reform. We very much can move forward to alleviate those concerns if we put the work in on a cross-party basis to be able to deliver that consensus. It is very important that we respect the views of those who have concerns about that, because I fundamentally believe that it is possible for the Parliament to be able to pass legislation that respects the rights of both the trans community and women that have been long fought for. Patrick Harvie, followed by Jenny Gilruth. I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement. I welcome the fact that it contains a commitment to the principle of gender recognition act reform, including the move to a self-declaration system that is already in place without a problem in a number of other countries. I also welcome the balance with which the cabinet secretary discussed the other concerns and questions that have been raised. The statement recognised that many such concerns are not about trans people but about the abuse of men and the threat that they pose. All women, including trans women and other trans people, are at particular risk from that kind of behaviour, so that is something that we should all want to see taken seriously. However, trans people have been waiting a long time for that reform and they have support from across the political spectrum and from well respected women's and feminist organisations across Scotland as well. Does the cabinet secretary agree that they deserve to know that a Parliament in which every single member stood for election on a manifesto promise to deliver that reform will indeed pass the legislation? Can the cabinet secretary confirm that it is the Government's intention that the legislation will be introduced in good time to be completed before the end of this Parliament? Before I call Shirley-Anne Somerville, I can just say that there are lots of people who wish to ask questions here. If everyone insists on making statements before they ask the question, we are not going to get through half of those that I have requests for. I fully appreciate that some people will be frustrated by my proposals today, that they feel that the pace of reform has not gone fast enough for them. I want to see reform of the gender recognition process. I want to introduce a bill about gender recognition, but more important, I want to see a bill about gender recognition passed by this Parliament and passed with wide support, not just in this chamber but in the wider public. In my judgment, the proposals that I set out today are the best way to achieve that. Others may disagree and I absolutely respect that entirely, but I want to get to the same destination. I would ask those who are feeling frustrated to work with me to that point. We will move forward with a bill once the consultation has gone forward, as I have said in the statement. Once those consultation responses have been analysed, we will report back to Parliament on the timetable for that bill in due course. Jenny Gilruth, followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act have been in place for longer than a decade, and given that there is a clear exemption for transgender people accessing single sex spaces and single sex services under the Equality Act, when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, can the cabinet secretary explain if the changes being outlined today seek in any way to change that? If you will allow me, I will repeat what I have said on this earlier, because I think that it is an exceptionally important point, and one that has quite rightly raised a great deal of concern. The Equality Act, I can confirm again, the 2010 Equality Act enables service providers to offer separate and differing services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria. Those services can treat people with protected characteristics of gender reassignment differently or exclude them completely where the action taken is proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. I spoke in my statement about the ability of a women's refuge to refuse entry. Once again, we are not planning to ask the UK Government for any changes to the exemptions in this area in the 2010 act. Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We asked for reform of the GRA in the last Parliament because it was harming trans people then, just as it is harming them now. I understand what the cabinet secretary is trying to achieve here, but I am concerned that there is now a risk that we might not pass legislation before this Parliament rises. For every month, the debate does not take place in this chamber. It takes place outside and is subject to rising tension and misinformation. If a draft bill will be ready later this year, can we run the second public consultation concurrently with the stage 1 process to give us a fighting chance of delivering reform in this Parliament? Shirley-Anne Somerville? No, I do not think that those aspects can be done concurrently at all. I would not think that that is advisable. Again, if I did not express it clearly enough to Patrick Harvie's question, it is our commitment to bringing forward a bill in this Parliament. That is what I want to do, but I do believe that it is absolutely imperative that we have that wider consultation about a draft bill first. I do not believe that what happens within a stage 1 process, important though that is, would have allowed the type and length of consultation that we will get through a draft bill. It is possible for us to do that draft bill and then present a bill to Parliament later on. That is possible within the timetable, but we will make sure that we have the consultation process and ensure that we analyse the responses from that and will update Parliament in due course. Joan McAlpine, followed by Jamie Greene. I welcome the commitment to a full equality impact assessment, the replacement of the school's guidance and the review of the statistics. I hope that that will include crime statistics. I would like to pay tribute to the independent women's campaign groups who have lobbied for this. Those campaign groups totally respect the right of transgender people to live however they wish, but this proposal is about changing sex. It means that any man can still change his sex to female without a medical diagnosis or any gatekeeping at a time when many more people are identifying as the opposite sex without making physical changes. The cabinet secretary did not mention the fact that the GRA confers extensive rights to privacy, which makes the single sex exemptions in the equality act hard to enforce. Can the cabinet secretary tell us if she thinks men with a history of violence against women should be allowed to change their legal sex and conceal their past identity? I welcome her comments on the single sex rights of the equality act 2010, and they are absolutely correct. However, the Scottish trans alliance lobbied to get rid of these and has been telling people now that they do not exist and that trans people can access single sex services. In conclusion, could she perhaps issue guidance because the single sex exemptions are not being enforced? Could she issue guidance on that and perhaps review how the equality act's single sex exemptions are working across Scotland? On the final point, I reiterate once again that this Government has absolutely no intention to make any changes to or request that the UK Government makes any changes to the equality act 2010 or to the exemptions that are in place. It is very important that I stress once again the point that I made in my statement that gender recognition has been in place since 2005. It was in place because a bill was passed by the UK Parliament because of the necessity to ensure that we have a legal provision to allow people to change their gender. That has been in place, as I say, since 2005. That is not new. What we are debating here is the reform of that process. I also point out and, hopefully, reassure on one particular aspect that Joan McAlpine mentioned that you cannot take advantage of current privacy protections in the Gender Recognition Act 2010 to hide a criminal offence. Individuals can obtain disclosure certificates for employment purposes. Previous names must be provided as part of that process. If a trans person is applying for a disclosure, they can apply using the present name and gender. However, they have to also give previous names, and those must be sent to disclosure Scotland. It is a criminal offence to make a false statement in relation to an application for a disclosure certificate. Jamie Greene, followed by Richard Lyle. We have been asked by many whether we support trans rights or women's rights. I think that we can do both, and I think that it is the right and proper thing that every one of us in this chamber does both. Today's statement will come as a disappointment to some, but it will also offer some comfort to others, perhaps in equal measures. Can I ask a specific issue that has not been raised yet around the guidance in schools? It was not clear to me from the statement what exactly is wrong with the current LGBT youth Scotland guidance that is given. Why is the minister replacing it, and what will it be replaced with? It goes back to one of the areas that I raised in my statement in general about the fact that people have to have trust and transparency around policies and how they have been developed. Now, as I said in my statement, LGBT youth went out to wide consultation on this issue. The guidance was delivered in good faith and with an absolute clear intention to help those in the trans community and those who identify as non-binary. However, there have been concerns raised about it. My fear is that, with the level of concern that there was, people were losing faith in that guidance and, therefore, it is perhaps not being used or it is being called into question. That is why it is important that the Scottish Government looks at the guidance around policy and implementation so that people can have faith in the policy and how it is being decided. My hope from the work that we can do within Government and within our public agencies is that people can have trust in the policy at the end of the day and that that will reassure women and also reassure those in the trans community that we take the issues that they are bringing to the Government in terms of bullying, mental health issues and so on, exceptionally seriously and we want to see policies in place that can work for both. However, I absolutely agree with the member's statement that we can do both. Again, I hope that I can work with him and others within his party to be able to achieve exactly that. There is no doubt that learning about gender recognition has been a journey of discovery for many. What I have realised is that I have found out the facts of what reform is proposed and what it will mean for trans people is different from what people may think is proposed. Reading from the cab sex speech, I note that the aim of this Government is to ensure that trans people in Scotland enjoy equality and feel safe and accepted for who they are. I welcome that statement. Can the cabinet secretary explain how she can get this over to the public? For I, for one, want it to be put over to the public. Shirley-Anne Somerville I absolutely agree with what the member says. This is a complex area and it raises emotions. I think that this area, in particular social media, is not always the most accurate source of information on this. That includes just what I am supposedly saying today, never mind the wider areas around it. That is why I tried to set out in my statement the direction of travel. However, I have also published a short fact sheet on the proposals that I have outlined today in my statement. In addition, when we publish the consultation on the draft bill, we will also publish more detailed fact sheets. I will consider what more can be done to provide straightforward, accurate information that may allay concerns in some areas. Again, I would welcome ideas from members about how we can best provide accurate and factual information, which is absolutely a responsibility of me. It is a responsibility of this Government, but it is a responsibility, as I said at the end of my statement, for everybody in this chamber to be able to carry out the conversation with dignity and respect that people should have for differing opinions on the issue. Kezia Dugdale, followed by Gail Ross. In the past few months, my trans constituents have had their very existence questioned. They have faced hateful rhetoric and have been told that they are psychologically unwell. All they want is to have a birth certificate that reflects who they are. They are not ill, but the sustained deliberation over their right to exist is damaging for their mental health and their wellbeing. So what additional support can the Government offer the trans community now that we have put the public spotlight on them? I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind Kezia Dugdale's question. All they want is a birth certificate that reflects who they are. I absolutely agree with that statement. That is why, as I said during my statement, I want to pass that reform to recognise the importance that those in the trans community place on it. I understand and am acutely aware that this debate has been toxic. I am also acutely aware therefore of the impact that that is having on people, including those in the trans community, who I have spoken to on a number of occasions. I hope that, as we move forward with the draft bill and we begin to debate the details of the proposals rather than the speculation that we will be able to move that debate into a different space. However, I absolutely, as I said in my statement, will continue to meet and discuss those proposals with equality groups, not just about the bill but also about the needs of the trans community in general, as we move forward to support them, which I do absolutely appreciate and understand has been a very difficult time for many of them. I have been particularly concerned about the damage that the current debate could cause to young trans people who may already feel isolated and stigmatised. What can she do to reassure them and expand on her comments on what she will consult on in terms of support for young people? That leads on very well from the discussion that Kezia Dugdale and I have just had on the impact that it has on the trans community. I very much agree that we need to support young trans people. I have met a number of individuals since I was honoured to take up this post. I have heard directly from them about their concerns about the current system, about gender recognition and also the impact that that debate is having, as I said to Kezia Dugdale. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that young trans people should receive the help and support that they need. I do intend, obviously, before this consultation issue to meet again with the trans community and to hear from their concerns directly. I would, of course, be very interested to hear from Gail Ross and other members if there are other suggestions that we need to look at. Again, it is not just about the legal gender recognition that is important, but it is about health, mental health and wellbeing to ensure that the trans community is assisted when there are areas in which they perhaps still see that there is inequality and disadvantage for them. Oliver Mundell, followed by Rona Mackay. I have strong support for the position and the tone that the cabinet secretary has set out, but does she agree that other people have a legitimate right to reach a different conclusion? For more than any other statement, I am aware that there will be many people who might not be happy with what I am proposing, because I am not going fast enough in proposals or because they do not want us to do anything. To be quite frank, we also have to recognise that there is a degree of transphobia that is in this country that we must take on at every instance. However, I am absolutely open to the fact that people have different ideas on that. I do not think that that is an area that we will come to consensus on easily, but I do think that we can. I think that this Parliament has risen to that challenge in the past. We have had draft bills, for example, over equal marriage that gave us that space. We might not get to the end of this process and have absolute unanimity around my proposals, but I would like to think that, as a chamber, we can unite around the concept of everybody in Scotland, whether it is in the trans community, whether it is women or anybody else, has the absolute right to have their rights protected and respected, and that is exactly what I think that this Parliament was established or re-established to do. Rona Mackay There are a working group that will be set up to look at data on sex and gender. I am also interested in the fact that you quoted the work of Carline Criaddo Perez and asked how we could use such data for policymaking and to promote the rights of women and tackle unconscious bias. Shirley-Anne Somerville I think that this is a very important area, as I said, that is not directly linked to the area of gender recognition, but it is very important. If there is anyone who still has not read the book Invisible Women in the chamber, I would highly recommend it as we move to the summer recess. This is an area that I have discussed with women's groups for some time. The issue around disaggregated data showing men and women separately can help to show whether there is discrimination and indicates where further work needs to be done, whether that is within health, whether that is in the workplace, whether that is in all aspects and in all parts of government. However, we need the data to be right first. We need accurate information about the roles of women and men in society to be able to provide the information for us to get our policies right. That is why I think that the working group on data will be a very important aspect of our work on sex and gender in general. Jenny Marra Presiding Officer, I thank the minister very sincerely for a very balanced and considered statement this afternoon. The questions today have shown that across the chamber there is a wealth of experience and a real commitment to getting this legislation right. Will the minister consider opening her door to MSPs from all across the chamber on a regular basis throughout this process so that we can sit down together, represent all views and reach a consensual way forward? Shirley-Anne Somerville Well, if indeed this is the last question within this statement, I think that that is an absolute fitting tone to end on. I would be delighted to take up Jenny Marra's offer on this issue to be able to work on a cross-party basis. If she has particular suggestions about the way that we can do that, I would be delighted to speak to her directly about that. As I have said earlier, we are setting out the Government's proposals in our direction for travel for this. The reason that I am moving forward with a draft bill is because I am keen to build that consensus that Jenny Marra spoke about. As I said, I would be delighted to take up Jenny Marra's invitation to work exactly on that basis. That concludes questions from the cabinet secretary's statement. I did allow a little extra time, but I am sorry that I was not able to take John Mason, Elaine Smith and Monica Lennon. We shall move on to the next item of business.


Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to comment on this very interesting research. My recognition to the three presenters and thank you again to the wider conference for giving me this opportunity. So I think some key questions came to my mind when I heard the presentation and I want to share some of them with you and obviously we can discuss them if time permits. As a former public servant that had to deal with issues of security and organized crime in the city of Cali for instance, which is very different from from Aegean and we can talk a little bit about that but just to give you some context Cali has a much less organized organized crime and therefore a much higher level of violence and I think one of the key insights that I gather from the presentation is this tradeoff between the levels of violence versus the control of organized crime in a city or in a country even. So I think policymakers face a terrible choice, I think Chris Blatman has called it a terrible choice between fighting and organized crime and reducing the influence of organized crime like Giancarlo mentioned. It's been done in Italy versus the level of violence that may generate. So even before getting into that the key question I have and one of the key conclusions that I have as a former public servant in Colombia is what sort of strategic level intelligence capabilities do states have regarding organized crime and gangs and I think my point of view is that we have a very poor understanding. Intelligence in general have a very poor understanding at the strategic level of organized crime and gangs and I think researchers like Chris Blatman, like Santiago, like Ben, like Giancarlo help us understand better organized crime but I think researchers cannot fully fill this gap, this void. I think we need much better intelligence on the side of the government to understand the capacities, the way of gangs, how they operate and their strategic interests and I think governments in general tend to be a little bit naive in terms of understanding how they operate and how they function. So what sort of information we need to evaluate and analyze different policies? I think Giancarlo pointed to some very interesting examples of how to analyze and how to measure the effectiveness but in general I think we as civilian leaders need much better tools to evaluate the balance of power for instance between organized crime and national police and one key problem we have is the source of information for civilian leaders is the police itself so how objective is the police going to be in informing civilian leaders of the balance of power between these sort of the tools of the state to guarantee security basically the police forces versus organized crime. Another thing I wanted to mention is how do we help bridge the gap between the traditional point of view traditional tactics and methods which I think are favored by public opinion and therefore favored by politicians but unfortunately as Ben discussed there's very little evidence that they are effective so the traditional point of view of repression, incarceration, criminalization of the drug trade etc is still much favored by the public opinion and therefore by politicians but as the research shows there seems to be significant questions of how effective they are in actually fighting organized crime. So how can we take a better look at a more nuanced approach in terms of fighting organized crime and gangs? And like I mentioned before one of the key questions that also comes to my mind is should governments focus on reducing violence or should they focus on dismantling organized crime and I think Santiago rightly points out that it's usually not a black or white answer it's probably going to be somewhere in the middle but I think we lack the tools and we lack the framework to fully analyze and fully discuss exactly how. An example from Colombia comes to my mind and it actually has a lot of political relevance right now because one of the two leading candidates for president his name is Federico Gutierrez he's a former mayor of Medellin and he has faced criticism because during his tenure the murder rate in Medellin started to climb again after decades of reducing and he has claimed that it's because he decided to face combos and razones and to at least attempt to dismantle part of their power but that generated in fact a higher level of violence in Medellin and likewise previous mayors of Medellin have been accused quote unquote of making packs with the with the with the combos to reduce violence so at what cost in terms of state legitimacy etc and I think the the contrast between Cali and Medellin illustrate that point of a city like Cali where organized crime is much less organized much less powerful we have fewer documented cases of extortion compared to Medellin but at the same time we have a weaker city government and a much higher level of violence so I think it's very interesting how Ben made his question that traditional point of view of crime flourishing where states are weak where in fact we see comparing different cities and even parts of the city in Medellin that actually they they are not they don't replace each other they actually coexist and complement each other which I think is rather interesting and the the conclusion that Ben presents how criminal governance is actually useful to states it's something very provocative that I personally had not considered before I agree with Santiago that we definitely need more research and organized crime but again like I said before we need more and better capabilities from from the states from the government to do better analysis and have strategic intelligence on the way these organizations operate and finally I also wanted to point out that what Jean Marco mentioned about Italy's moderate being half of Finland's I to be honest with you I had to look it up because I was I had a difficulty believing it and it turns out it's not half it's like almost a third of Italy's I think yeah of Finland's Finland's is close to 1.3 1.5 in the range and Italy's is 0.5 and and that again brings us to the previous question that I brought up which is what do we prefer do we I it's difficult to take to make a decision do we prefer I I would say many many people would say a situation like Finland's is better than Italy's you would argue but at the same time you have tripled the level of violence so of course Finland's is still very low for even for for European standards but but it's interesting how this trade-off between violence versus criminal control is there and it's something that politicians avoid talking about it's something the public probably doesn't is not fully aware of but it's something that has to be I think a key part of the discussion and when we discuss the legitimacy and also the welfare of communities and of course violence plays a huge role in in in the establishing and the level of welfare that citizens experience so I hope these questions are a good starting point for a discussion and I think we have some some time to discuss thank you thank you very much so I can feel and see maybe we'll just get the panel to sort of sit up here and then we'll we'll take the questions right we've got plenty of time so I'll just sort of start maybe here at the front and then work our way back through let's take them in batches of three and I'll make sure I get to all of you thanks so much for can you all hear me yes thanks so much for an excellent panel and I have a question for Ben so Ben your question is why don't states retrain their capacity to curb criminal governance and you don't talk much about the demand side which is something that Andres just mentioned which is the overwhelming support for what you may call penal populism or hardline public security policies and I'm wondering how you think that plays into the story that you're trying to tell in Brazil we know that citizens overwhelmingly support policies that are ineffective but that make them feel like the government is is taking action and mass incarceration is one of those military policing is another there are all sorts of there's a collection of policies that citizens despite the fact even learning that they're ineffective will still continue to support thanks just introduce yourself Michael I'm sorry I'm Michael wine trap when you were said the Los Angeles I'm part of the Colombian combo here okay thank you and then the lady here in front please in the second row hi I'm Marina I'm from Alto University my question is for Benjamin so I was wondering if you could provide some thoughts on how the rise in the number of militias especially in the state of Rio de Janeiro is changing the dynamics in organized crime in Brazil because one can argue that the militias are quite different from these previous criminal factions that you showed like comando vermelho and PCC they have stronger ties to the Brazilian state you know their members are mostly composed of policemen either retired or not and also they have like this alternative sources of revenues not only coming from the drug traffic but also from charging fees from the population that lives under their controlled areas and maybe how this translates into violence indicators in the country thank you very much one more the gentleman in the green jumper behind you thank you I'm Andy Hinsley from the UK's foreign Commonwealth Development Office so I'd like to ask about the implications for economic development we heard in the Italian case that employment growth was stronger when when the law was applied but in Colombia and Brazil what are what are the implications of these tolerance equilibria that you can see for economic development so you could definitely imagine that the high violence equilibria and the crackdown case would be very negative for investment and growth how constraining are the the tolerance equilibriums for for growth and investment and what what are the sort of longer-term implications for the trajectory of economic development if that's allowed to continue thank you very much so there were a couple of questions for Benjamin over to you yeah great thanks for those great questions so Michael yeah I mean there's a huge demand for hardline policing it's part of how this whole thing a hardline policing mass incarceration of course drug repression and that and I wouldn't deny that at all I think it's it's part and parcel of how this works I would say two things first of all you know there's demand for all kinds of policies but that doesn't make those policies sustainable over time people would love like helicopter drops of money but that would lead to inflation and so you can't just keep doing that so part of what I'm trying to talk about is how this is sustainable over time but also it's important to be clear that the hardline policies is part of how this system of criminal governance it is stable it's hard it's part of what keeps the criminal groups it's part of what gives them incentives to govern so you know you're not going to get prison based criminal governance unless you have a huge prison population overcrowded prisons which is partly driven by this demand for lock them up you know throw them away throw away the key long prison sentences terrible prison conditions and it's precisely the kind of demand for the policy the political popularity of the kind of policies you're talking about and part of what gives drug traffickers incentives to govern in the in the favelas is the violent policing around the drug trade so they know that if they if police get called in there's likely to be shooting violence against them and so it gives them all the more incentive to govern so I wouldn't say that I think the two things go hand-in-hand but the milice is you know this is a fascinating and terrifying development where I you know I showed you on that map all the red dots are the commando vermelio the traditional prison-based drug gangs and all the blue dots are these police link milice is the fastest growing form of criminal government of organized crime in Rio and probably spreading throughout Brazil while we're not even aware of it that way that I showed you that the factions the prison gangs spread through Brazil in 2010 to 2020 everybody denied it all the officials denied it until it was too late my 2018 you know officials governors were saying we don't have these gangs they don't exist they only exist in Rio they already existed in their states and so before anyone knew it the whole country was factionalized well I believe the milice is are probably spreading right now but a people you know officials will still tell you oh no milice is that's a Rio thing it's a terrifying new model because milice is our active duty police officers who are extorting marginalized populations you know when they're sort of off-duty so it's a it's very much a nightmare they're very hard to combat because these are you know actual active duty members of the police that said you'll notice that they're not very active where there's high-value retail drug markets so it does seem like there's a kind of equilibrium where the traditional demonized sort of very marginalized groups who are make up these come on the remedy drug factions often from much more lower-class backgrounds much more poor backgrounds often racialized as well are left to deal with the dirty job of extracting money from the drug trade which then gets paid through corruption up the ranks while these police link milice is are left to govern the sort of less lucrative more spread out zones of the city where they have to live off of extortion of the local population thank you very much and so on the third question on the sort of tolerance to vote or towards violence I'd like to yes thank you so just like a couple of comments there while if you think about like local economic development like on one hand I guess having a criminal organization that regulates violence and controls the territory might actually induce some sort of development because of like violence reduction might lead to kids being for instance more able to go to school people more able to go to work or maybe more incentives to maybe open some sort of businesses but on the other hand what we have seen not only Medellin but also in Rio de Janeiro in El Salvador and this seems to be a pattern is that these groups the main aim of this combos imagine for instance is to like sell drugs at the beginning and to do that you need to be able to enforce a local monopoly so you need to be able to develop enough coercive capacity to protect that monopoly and then once you have like territorial control the marginal cost of diversifying into other businesses is very low so you can start for instance to monopolize legal markets on gas canisters on cable TV on even like dairy products X and many other like consumer goods and that's what they're doing in Medellin that's what we have been also observing in some service that we've been running in Rio de Janeiro for instance that's also been happening in El Salvador and this is just a restriction of competition right so we've been observing for instance these groups imagine colluding with distributors of gas canisters to protect monopolies so a distributor of gas canisters would arrive to the to the street gun to the combo and would offer them some money in exchange of the combo protecting the monopoly for this group so there's like this like very gray and shady kind of hinder on local economy development that's actually hard to observe how to how to like tailor and track and and potentially it has like long-term very damaging impacts so it's it's a good question with like very like difficult answers I think okay so thank you so I'm speculating here but I think after the stories about state capacity so if you look at the level of homicide in Italy at the beginning of the 90s was similar very similar the same to Mexico in 2006 2007 in Mexico the drug war starts and this is an extra escalation of violence that is still nowadays we see like a linear increase in the number homicide in Mexico and now it's much much higher than it was in 2006 so there is a lot of debate or whether the Mexican drug war was successful or not conversely in the Italian case there was this big crackdown at the beginning of the 90s and as I said now the homicides rate is very low and criminal organization have not been defeated and I think the difference at least the part of the difference it's about state capacity so if you look at those two indicator homicides was the same in Italy and Mexico in those two periods the capacity was very different if you look at the you know intern World Banker indicators and so on and I think this could be an important element to understand why crackdowns might might work or not in different scenarios because there are other different also because the two countries and the way criminal organization work but I think in this morning presentation Tom was saying this state capacity it can matter a lot thank you so I'll go to the left now yeah just yeah just Eric just wait for the mic thank you Eric Eric worker from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver where we're one of the most liberal cities in North America for drug policy and thanks for the fascinating papers I wanted to pick up on the question from Michael on the exchange with Ben you've all described a relationship with drug repression and the existence of formal gangs basically and and my question is and and you've also talked about the trade-off between violence and legitimacy and I guess why not consider the trade-off between legitimacy that comes from having a war with gangs versus legitimacy from decriminalizing drugs and you know you have on the one hand drug users but then the state's response to drug users is harm reduction and education which would seem to be further legitimacy enhancing activities and then a sort of a matter question is do we as researchers on these things have a responsibility to model perhaps off-equilibrium policy alternatives to make those more realistic in that in the context thanks anybody else from this side yeah hi my name is Ranjan from the University of Kent I had a question for Jen Marco I think you thanks for your presentation I so what I understand from what the Italian government did was dissolving local municipal assemblies and then basically in interim setup controlled by technocrats until the next electoral cycle happens but I would like to know a bit more about what were the fundamental conditions that were changed during that interim setup because you know usually when you look at elections you have an electoral cycle the interim government is just there to hold new elections and nothing really fundamentally changes on the ground because they don't have the mandate to do anything apart from holding the next elections so with regards to local propensity for conflict or local propensity for gang violence for instance what were these bureaucrats doing during the interim period that made a difference to you know the new regime coming in so to speak or was it a case that some other shock happened around the same time of these the solution which is really driving the result anybody else over there I saw the hand up at the very back there thank you my name is Jackson from conflict research Network West Africa I want to ask a general question from the presentation I observed that it implies that both in stronger states and fragile weaker states like we have in Africa gang wars and gang governance issues are there so in that case does it have anything to do with the regime type and regime system that is been practiced across across the the zones then secondly if all the policy initiatives the the government have been using like for instance the incarceration approach or removing public officials from office you know if it's if it's not effective enough idea any alternative contextual community based approaches that can be applied as against top-bottom states based approaches which hasn't addressed the issue thank you thank you very much who would like to start on this yeah thank you just like a couple of words on legalization because I do think that let's just think about Europe in general right so most likely in every city in Europe and probably here in Helsinki will find a market for cocaine right and the problem of this market being illegal is that regulation has to come from some illegal organization so I think that keeping drugs illegal is just a permanent incentive incentive for organized crime to grow stronger right what would happen if we legalize drugs it's hard to think that all these groups will just move to the legal sector some of them might just remain in the illegal sector by exploiting other sort of opportunities but it would certainly reduce the size of the pie because the rents are going to be smaller and most likely that's my speculation the problem of organized crime will be less like damaging and and and and hard this all like has another side which is what it's related to what Michael mentioned before which is like public support for legalization is it's it's hard but I do think that we need to think of that path as a potential solution I can't imagine like like the war on drugs for instance has been I don't know ongoing for 50 years and and the only thing that has happened is that we now see more drug use all over the world so it's hard to think that if we continue doing this in 50 years there's going to be I don't know no market for drugs most likely it's going to be more demand and if it remains illegal then the incentives for these groups to regulate these markets using violence is going to be there as well so yeah I guess that's those are my my two points there thank you very much so let me just pass over thanks yeah I have some comments on legalization as well I mean I agree with everything Santiago just said I would personally be in favor of drug legalization but you know a couple of points first of all you know legalization or decriminalization that actual real-world decriminalization has mostly been about marijuana maybe mushrooms or someone you know psychedelics it's not really about cocaine or heroin and those are the drugs that cause organized that's where the profits are that's where organized crime is that's where organized crime violence is and that's where criminal governance is for the most part so I'm not that hopeful and I don't see proposals to legalize cocaine I don't see countries that are like yeah what's that sure sure sure but you know I don't I don't see and I don't see Latin American countries having the political autonomy to say we're gonna legalize cocaine I'm not saying it shouldn't happen we shouldn't work towards it I'm just saying in the short term I don't see that happening the other thing I want to say is that in part of what I'm trying to get at in this book and I also have a companion piece that's like a formal model that talks a little bit about the political economy here you really I think one thing we miss about this is that by illegalizing markets like cocaine and heroin very lucrative markets already we know from sort of classic economic models like Becker you know if you if you if you repress and you reduce supply for a good that has inelastic demand as drugs do you increase the revenues and potentially the profits of that market there's almost no doubt that these drug markets are vastly more profitable because they're illegal right and those profits what do they go to well they go to competition among drug gangs if they're not competition among them they compete away all the profits if they have monopolies like local monopolies like corner street corner gangs do then they get to keep some of those profits but a lot of those resources in my argument go into local governance that's what those are the resources that gangs use to govern these urban peripheries so we have a system that has taken a market for illegal illegal drugs demonized it associated it with impoverished informal urban neighborhoods it's fostered criminal organizations that are able to administer that market profit off of it and ultimately channel those resources into governance over areas that the state would just as soon not have to deal with that is a very entrenched problem it's not just a question at this point after 30 or 40 years of simply okay well it's legalized drugs and we can wash our hands of this problem I would say it's a good deep structural problem about the way that industrialization and urbanization has played out at least in Latin America and I think we need to also start looking around the world at other places where this phenomenon may be happening at local levels that aren't even being perceived right well who are the criminal organizations that provide low-level local governance in the urban peripheries around the world have people gone to those peripheries and found out are there criminal gangs that are resolving disputes for people I don't know the answer to that question I think it's an important research agenda especially as the drug trade moves into Western Africa and other parts of the world in the last 10 or 15 years let's just stay on the topic of drugs and then come back to the other questions so I think there's a big difference between decriminalization and legalization and my understanding is that a particle has decriminalized the personal use of drugs yeah or drugs but it's not legal you can't go and legally buy it yeah sell it or produce it yes there's a big difference so let's keep this in mind in our in our discussion here and I think Portugal has been a lot in the headlines we've got quite a few Portuguese here you could help us out on this but my understanding is that actually before the decriminalization came in there was a de facto non-prosecution already in force and that is actually the case in a lot of other countries as well on personal possession not dealing thank you yeah I also wanted to bring my two cents on the decriminalization or legalization discussion and I think part of this comes from it's a vicious circle between governments and public opinion I think unfortunately there's a widespread conception of drug use as something that is extremely horrendous and destroyed lives etc and it's it's it's uncomfortable to say this but the reality and the evidence from a public health point of view shows that the great majority of drug users are functioning normal people just like most people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics most people who use cocaine or heroin are not in fact addicted or have horrendous life so we feed this narrative and we feed this sort of alternative reality and we sell it to public opinion and since most people in public opinion do not use cocaine or heroin or opioids etc they buy into this narrative and they push for governments to keep drugs illegal etc etc and it feeds off itself it's a close loop and I think academia has to play a role in this to sort of broaden the discussion and the reality that from a from a public health point of view a public health perspective of what drug uses really like and and of course link it in with with the horrible the horrible impact of organized crime in terms of violence etc so I think we really need to expand the discussion and it's not something that's going to be easy but I think I think we need to make the push for this and on this you can read Carl Hart who has done some research on this okay everybody got very excited about this question but let's move on to some other question one was addressed to John Marcus specifically about the on the ground conditions that change yeah yeah so what the commissioner do is to for instance in the case of infiltration into public procurements is to change the condition so if the public procurement was assigned to firm related to mafia that's an action that they are under taker for instance so the management or the public budget is important a second I think there is a symbolic value especially in cases where the infiltration of the mafia is more recent and cities and are not a totally hopeless it's an important sign to see that the state the national government took a decision on very specific community you know to send technocrats so I see I think for some citizen this this as a value and then there is also an police related aspect so if there are evidence of ties between a politician or more than one and mafia's of course they will start an investigation that will take you know years but that show that you know the state the police is more present actor in that community so that can also have you know a deterrence effect on the presence of a criminal organization in that in that city and then I wanted to reply also another question about the more bottom up approach so in Italy there was this a bigger crackdown at beginning of the 90s following the murder of two judges and this was also the start of widespread social movements in Sicily against mafia and nowadays there are many NGO working on anti-mafia in Sicily so for instance they are very successful in the promoting small shops to join an anti-racial movement displaying a sign saying that you know they don't pay to the mafia so this is extremely important it's about the cultural change and it's related also to what they were in their presentation they were talking about the support of the population for those cultural changes of course are extremely difficult and they take time but the Italian experience on this is that a big shock that was the murder of two important judges fighting the mafia was a turning point on this and another issue all the lead all those policies are clearly limitation because they deal with these long-term problems so there is a cultural aspect that I mentioned and then there is an economic one that is the fact that those are poor area with the high level of unemployment so there is a kind of rational if I have no alternative you know I go after of those organization so those are you know long-term issues thank you let's hear from Andres and I think then we'll have to draw to a close I also wanted to address what the gentleman brought up about the grassroots and bottom-up approaches and another uncomfortable truth we often overlook is that many of these gangs are in fact sort of grassroots organizations themselves and in many cases they at least I experienced this in Cali when in my tenure as a secretary of security in Cali but I think in Medellin is true and probably true in many other cities around the world is they they operate and they provide significant services for for the community from a grassroots level so I think it would be interesting to see how and that's partly the approach we took in Cali how do we instead of seeing gangs as necessarily evil or necessarily negative try to bring them into the sort of social fabric and see how they can we can reduce the harm that they that they that comes from for instance the violence associated to gangs etc and see how we can make them part of the social network and sort of the social fabric of the community and and try to build legitimacy from the bottom up and I think we can just like we see governments usually taking steps from the from the top to to the bottom likewise I think we we also approach the the solution to violence from from a top bottom approach like dismantling drug cartels or signing a peace deal with the FARC but that usually even when that happens it generates a huge void that oftentimes is filled from the bottom up so it'd be interesting to see if we can take a more alternative approach to see how we can make or understand the the grassroots components of these organizations and try to weave them into the social fabric and and sort of empower the positive aspects that they bring and try to limit the harm that they they generate as well okay one quick comment this is just something to add on to that it goes back to the legalization thing again I agree that we're very very far from true legalization but a piece of legalization that's being discussed in Brazil it's being discussed in the US has to do with reparations to people who were drug traffickers and once drug trafficking becomes legal right so you were imprisoned for dealing pot and now pot legal you deserve some reparation well there's a case to be made that in a world like that some of these people their abilities as provisioners of local governance taking care of their communities should be taken advantage of right and those people should be you know in a recruited and incorporated into government local governance structures as part of some kind of reparations package and that's way politically out of the pale right now but it's something to think about for the future


So can you tell us your name and where are you from? My name is Dan and I live in Richland. And Dan can you tell us how you came across hunger generation and what happened then? I came across the hunger generation crew about almost 13 years ago. I played the drums for about two years for them when I when I met them. And then what happened? And then my parents divorced after 10 years of pastoring here in Washington state. And that just devastated me. It led to drugs, violence, gangs, couldn't hold a job. All relationships, friendships just wouldn't work. Constantly incarcerated some setback after setback for a good five, six years. And then you said that you were trying to come back to God. What happened of you coming trying to come back to church? I was really, I wanted to come back to church right before the revival with Wiseman Harry. And I attempted to do that on my own without any mentors, without trying to do it on my own. I thought I knew enough of the Bible that I could just do it on my own and that did not work. And then what happened afterwards? How your life began to turn around? When was the breaking point when you realized enough is enough? I could literally see how Satan had control of my life in every area. Spiritually, mentally, my finances, everything. Out of my control, after so many setbacks, I got tired of not having control.  And now this time around, I want to leave everything in God's hands for him to take control. Can you tell us a little bit of how your life has been changing since that you rededicated your life to Christ? What is the difference that God has been making in your life? Now that it's amazing how God, once he takes control, it's endless the amount of faith that can grow in you and trusting in God, knowing that he is taking control over everything ever since then. And then I got married to my beautiful wife. And so with God's help, I want to be a good husband and a good father to both of my boys. And I'm going to let him take control this time. Do you have any advice for people that may be in the same situation that you were coming to church, slid back? Can you tell them tonight? Encourage them tonight?  I felt useless, not worthy of even coming to church after seeing what he used, how he used me before and just let him take control. Don't ever think that you'll be able to do it on your own and seek your mentors and just let God take control.


United States. Thank you very much, please. It's an honor to have you all here at the White House. Now I know that must sound strange. Most people think of it as an honor to be invited here. And that includes myself. I remember how humble I felt on that day in 1980 when the American people first asked me to come here. But today the tables are turned, for by your deeds, you and the members of your community have honored all America. You've shown us all once again the love and courage, the self-sacrifice, and eagerness to help and serve those in need, in short, the qualities that for generations have been the heart of American life. It was an ordinary winter's day at the end of the New Year's weekend. Some of you were hanging out laundry. Some of you were about to watch the football game, and then something happened. Investigators are still piecing together just what it was, and your community was face-to-face with the worst accident in Amtrak history. And that's when, on that ordinary day, the people of Chase, Maryland, showed that what we take as ordinary in America is really very wonderful and special, very extraordinary. Robert Booker, this cousin Michael Cooper, were among the first on the scene. Robert climbed into a burning car. He couldn't save everyone. And I know that he and all of you have thought a great deal since that day about those whom God took into his arms. But also remember that there are many who are alive today because of your strength and courage. You gave to scores of people the gift of life. As Michael and Robert worked together, helping to pull people out of the train, Eve Booker and Juanita Matisse helped to care for the injured, cleaning their wounds, wrapping them, covering them with blankets from their homes to keep them warm. As one reporter wrote of Eve and Juanita, they acted quickly, calmly, heroically, but when the night ended, the 15-year-olds wept. Well, those stories of sacrifice and love were repeated hundreds of times that day. All of you and your neighbors helped people escape the wreck, helped care for them, feed them, gave them shelter. Nancy Tharp said there were 45 passengers in her house on that Sunday. As Bob Cooper said later, everybody just chipped in and did what they had to do. And as a result, most of the passengers were out of the train even before the emergency crews arrived. In the hours and days that followed you took into your homes not only the victims of the crash, but rescue workers and reporters too. I don't want to forget the magnificent work of those workers or the people who, within hours, lined up to give blood for the victims. They made us all proud too. Some have talked since about how amazing you were, and I know that Kathy Fisher spoke for all of you when she told a reporter, I don't think it was anything remarkable. I think if it had been another community, they would have done the same thing. But that's just the point. You all did what Americans have done for more than two centuries. When others were in need, you didn't point to the other guys, you just rolled up your sleeves and went to work. Not long ago, a commentator on a network news show said that we Americans had become selfish, only out for ourselves, had lost our dedication to community and country. I know he's paid well to give his wisdom to the country each and every week, but for my money, the true wisdom is in Kathy Fisher's words, and the best answer to him is your example. Yes, on an ordinary day in January, Americans in an ordinary American community showed extraordinary courage, self-sacrifice, and love for their fellow man. And when it was all over, you didn't brag and shout, you just went back to your daily work, that you left behind a gift, not just for crash victims, but for all of us. Your strength strengthened all Americans. Your spirit will long inspire and guide us all. And as president, I just asked you here today so I could say thanks. Thank you all, and God bless you all. And now I'd like to award the private sector initiative's commendation to the community of Chase Maryland. And Robert Booker, will you please step forward? You see, this is in recognition of the exemplary community service in the Financed American Community. Thank you all very much, and I just, for my curiosity, where are the two young ladies sitting that night cried?  There you are. Well, God bless you. Well, again, I hate to walk away and leave, but they tell me I've still got things to do over there. I haven't told this for a long time, but I got some letters from some young people when I first arrived in Washington. And one of them that always appealed to me was from a little girl. And she wrote very informed about the things that were facing me and the problems I had to solve and everything. And when she finished, she said, now get back to the Oval Office and get to work. So that's what I'll do. Thank you.