Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. You said that sometimes there can be difficult conversations with certain religious groups. We heard concerns throughout the previous evidence session that the ban would restrict religious freedoms. I will just tack on a little bit to that.

You have mentioned many organisations; they are all organisations that are very worthy and do a great job, but I did not hear you mention any of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian faith organisations. What was it like for you to reach out to them? What I am trying to get at here is what Richy Edwards said earlier. It is not about punishing people; we need to educate people. I know, coming from a Sikh background, that in such faith groups, much education is needed so that people can start accepting that this is normality, that these people are around and we all live together and that is the way that it should be. It is about educating people a little bit more, so you need to reach into the faith groups to educate them. Have they allowed your voice to be heard in those faith groups?

Thank you for your presentation, Sandra. Like my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy, I did not know much about Makaton, so it was really useful to hear about that and about the great work that Margaret Walker has done.

Our briefing for the meeting highlights a

“lack of a routine procedure for identifying individuals with a learning disability”

and a lack of intersectional data. If there was more in-depth data collection about different types of physical and learning disabilities, would that help to identify where Makaton would be most useful and how best it could be delivered in certain services? Which services should it be used in?

Good morning. Ian Duddy, in your opening statement, you mentioned that you are setting out a plan and a vision for the future. With that in mind, we all know that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill would have had a significant impact on the Scottish Human Rights Commission, such as through the powers in section 10A. Is the continuing uncertainty around when the amended bill will be reintroduced causing issues for the commission in its long-term planning, and would the commission like more clarity from the Scottish Government on the timescale for the bill’s reintroduction?

Thank you for that information. You have spoken about your budget and your ask for the year ahead. For clarity, is that included in the figure, or is there uncertainty because you are looking for more staff and more money but you are not certain about when the work will come through? That could affect your long-term planning and the budget side.

Thank you.

I had a catch-up call from Ian Duddy, as I am sure my colleagues did. One of the questions that he asked was what the top priorities are in our constituencies and regions. That is important. I do not know how many MSPs the commission has reached out to—perhaps it was just committee members—but all MSPs represent a constituency or region, so it might be good to reach out to them to see what their top concerns are. We are on the ground and we listen to people. Obviously, you mentioned the cost of living, but there are many other areas, so that might be a good idea.

Two weeks ago, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, raised a number of concerns about the Scottish Government’s proposed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. As you will be aware, Ms Alsalem raised concerns that the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms could

“open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it.”

and that

“This presents potential risks to the safety of women in all their diversity”.

Does the SHRC have any comments to make on that intervention by the United Nations, and do witnesses agree with Reem Alsalem that the bill should be postponed so that such concerns can be properly addressed?

In your opening statement, you mentioned the big areas that you will focus on. How do you come to a conclusion on which areas you would like to focus on in creating your vision and plan?

Thank you, Ian. You are absolutely right that human rights should be for everybody—I have said that many times in the committee and in the chamber—and that is why you are here today. We are talking about these rights, and, yes, these rights should be there to protect trans people as well as women and girls, and that is why the concern exists: we do not want predators out there pretending and able to obtain a gender recognition certificate to do that.

You have talked about concerns; you have mentioned that. Do you not think that it would be a good idea if the Scottish Government were to postpone the bill to look at the concerns, because they have been highlighted? We cannot just dismiss somebody from the United Nations saying something now; I know that you have said that they said something else previously, but it is very clear that that has been said now, so should we not look at that?

This is to protect trans people as well, so that they do not get blamed later on for something. I have said it very plainly and clearly in the committee that we should have rights for everybody, and we need to make sure of that. Trans people really need those rights, and they have been fighting for them. They should get their rights, but we should also make sure that women and girls are safe from the actual, real bad people, not the trans people.

You have said that there are practices in place under which a woman can ask for a female doctor, if they are available, and I must thank the NHS for going out of its way to accommodate the diversity of religions. However, can you clarify something for me, cabinet secretary? If my mum walked into a doctor’s surgery and did not know that the person was a biological man but saw a female—a trans female, obviously; I have to get that right—she would not ask. She just would not know. How do we protect the rights of trans people but balance that with the rights of people from religious backgrounds? How can you ask for something or how can someone provide something if you do not know anything?

As I said previously, I recognise that improvements to the gender recognition process would be beneficial for trans people. However, my job here is to ensure that the bill, once enacted, is balanced. As it stands, the bill does not strike a balance and instead puts women, girls and vulnerable individuals in harm’s way.

Amendments 74 and 75 protect single-sex spaces. The amendments would require Scottish ministers to publish information on the impact of the legislation on single-sex spaces and services. Throughout this process, some of the concerns raised by stakeholders and witnesses on the issue have been met with accusations of scaremongering. The Scottish Government has repeatedly brushed off those concerns and suggested that there is no data to suggest that abuse of self-ID would take place as a result of the bill. However, there are legitimate concerns that the changes introduced by the bill would make it easier for predatory men to abuse the process.

Written evidence, including evidence from the Women’s Rights Network Scotland, has indicated that the absence of a medical diagnosis and a gender recognition panel, as well as the lowering of the waiting period from two years to three months, could lead to predators falsely claiming to be trans in order to gain access to single-sex spaces. That is particularly concerning for vulnerable individuals, such as women in domestic abuse shelters, women in prison, and young children. Those are concerns that we have heard time and time again throughout the process. If the Government really has the courage of its convictions and thinks that those concerns are not valid, it will allow the reviews to take place in order to provide some reassurance.

I will support amendment 110, which will allow for accurate reporting on sex. I will also support amendments 23, 24, 25, 101 and 151, which seek to provide more guidance and clarity—for the avoidance of doubt—on the interaction between the bill, when enacted, and the Equality Act 2010. I also support the Equality Act 2010 in its current form, including the existing definitions that it contains, and therefore I will support amendments 37, 104 and 152.

I really hope that today the cabinet secretary provides a response that will give some reassurance to the women, girls and parents out there who have expressed their concerns by contacting me directly, or in social media, in the media and at the rallies outside Parliament. I hope that she has listened in order to ensure that the bill, once enacted, is fair and balanced for all.

I hope that the cabinet secretary can demonstrate that she has, at the very least, listened to those concerns and that she will support my amendments. Although I do not believe that they alone will provide a safeguard, they would at least offer some reassurance that the impact of the bill on single-sex services and spaces will be reviewed.