Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

No. That is protected under the Equality Act 2010. It is about the religion itself. I know this from the case of my own mother. Normally, when somebody goes into a healthcare setting, if we see in front of us a male or female doctor, we can ask to see the female doctor. If one is present at the time, fine; if not, an appointment may be arranged for the next day or the week after, which is acceptable. We are not asking for special attention; we are asking to carry on what goes on right now.

If there are more GRCs out there, how will we know that a trans person is a biological man? There will be more such people in our services and spaces. As of yet, no statistical modelling has been done to forecast the number of GRC applications that we can expect, which means that I have little confidence in the accuracy of the Scottish Government’s prediction of 250 to 300 applications per year. Either way, we know that the loosening of eligibility criteria will result in an influx of applications and a much larger group of GRC holders compared with now. Secondly, we know that service providers are already unclear as to what section 22 of the 2004 act means in practice. Therefore, if the Scottish Government truly wishes to make women with concerns feel safe and to ensure that their rights are respected—I refer here to amendments 80 and 81—I ask it to consider whether the criminal offence of disclosing someone’s status as a GRC holder remains proportionate and whether it considers that there should be further exceptions to section 22, in light of the bill’s provisions.

I am in favour of amendments 150 and 156, which seek to review the operation of section 22 of the 2004 act and the subsequent reporting requirement. Given the concerns that have been raised with me about the impact of the bill in areas such as health and justice, and on women and girls and children, I lend my support to amendments that seek to review the impact of the eventual act, such as amendments 1, 136, 143, 148, 144 and 155.

In addition, a concern for many parents is the decoupling of legal and medical aspects, so I support amendment 139, in the name of Sarah Boyack, and amendment 140, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which seek to review gender identity healthcare services. I recognise the need for more medically sound professional care and shorter waiting times. I am also in favour of an impact assessment of the act, as outlined in amendment 146, and a review of the act, as outlined in amendment 145, and I would expect the review to be laid before Parliament.

I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary will have the empathy and understanding to recognise that, given the new lax rules for obtaining a GRC, it would be unreasonable to suggest that the criminal offence of disclosing someone’s status as a GRC holder remains proportionate.

It is also the case that, as the number of GRC holders will rise substantially, that will, without expanding the exceptions under section 22 of the 2004 act, increase the likelihood that a woman will have a medical examination and the like carried out by a biological man. If possible, she should have a choice in that. I would like to hear how the cabinet secretary intends to work with us to address the concerns that women, including women of faith, and girls have raised.

I am happy to support all the amendments in this group. Amendments 45 and 48 add a new safeguard to the bill that would require a countersignatory process to accompany any new application for a gender recognition certificate, similar to that for applying for a passport.

Although the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting amendments 45 and 48, we make it clear that that safeguard is not enough. However, it is an improvement on the existing provision in the bill, which is why we will support the amendments.

I would prefer existing legal safeguards to be retained, as my colleagues have already set out. We should, in particular, keep the age at which one can apply for a GRC at 18, keep the period in which one must live in an acquired gender at two years, and retain the need for a medical diagnosis when applying for a GRC. However, Michael Marra’s amendments improve the bill as drafted, so I am content to support them.

Amendment 154 provides a concrete definition of what a statutory declaration would entail. I put it on record that I do not think that that is enough; applications should also be accompanied by an associated medical diagnosis and a longer period lived in the acquired gender should be required. However, given that the Scottish Government has failed to properly define what a statutory declaration entails, amendment 154 at least provides a definition that already exists in law and that has been used for some time: namely, that provided in the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. I hope that that will bring greater clarity to the bill, which is why I am happy to support amendment 154.

We discussed the high drop-out rates in colleges earlier. Would the minister consider changing how data is collected, so that, when people switch colleges or courses or transfer to other colleges, that does not count as a drop-out?

Good morning, minister and officials. My question follows Bob Doris’s question about closing the funding gap.

Not only do colleges get less per student than universities, but the Improvement Service’s local government benchmarking framework shows that average gross spend per pupil in Scotland in 2020-21 was £9,273 for pre-school education, £5,916 at primary school and £7,657 at secondary school. Why is funding for colleges so much lower than funding for universities and schools? Are university students and school pupils worth more than college students?

Lastly, I speak to a lot of businesses, and colleges are vital for businesses’ journey to getting the right skills. As a visitor to the committee, I cannot emphasise this enough: please think about all the questions that have been asked today by colleagues. We need to invest in colleges; we need to help them, whether through capital funding or pupils; and we need to do much more. I cannot emphasise enough how often colleges speak to me about funding cuts. You talked earlier about where to get the funding, but you are the minister, so you should be telling us where you can move money around—I do not mean by making cuts. We need to consider what is best for colleges, because businesses are crying out for those skills.

Good morning, minister. In your opening statement, you spoke about reaching out in order to address violence against women and girls. How do you reach communities that are hard to reach, such as black, Asian and ethnic minority communities? Last week, we heard that some communities are hesitant about letting people in, answering questions and giving their details, because, sometimes, they feel that they are not heard or they do not know why they should give the information. It would be good to know how the Government is reaching out to those communities. Do you provide any feedback to people after taking information from them?

I thank the minister for that answer.

I thank the minister for being honest. We need to use all the organisations and partnerships out there to ensure that we reach out.

The good news is that my mother came back to me to ask about one of the groups. It was to do with an exercise that you are doing out there through one of the organisations. She said, “Should I go to this with my friends?” I said that she certainly should. That is the first time that the Government has reached out to my mum—in that many years, it has never reached out before, and she is quite heavily involved with the community.

That is good news. However, although it is fantastic that those organisations—I talk to all the organisations that you mentioned—are doing a great job, could the Government sometimes do more to get out there and reach people, maybe in religious settings? The congregations in religious settings are massive. The Government could reach out in that way to raise awareness first, rather than just going in and collecting data. Sometimes people need to know who you are and what you are doing—it is about making an introduction, rather than going straight into using an organisation. That approach can be helpful.

Sometimes people are missed. As I said, my mother found out about that organisation only because somebody spoke about it in the temple, which is where she is all the time. I was very pleased to hear that the Government is reaching out in that way. What are your views on that, minister?