Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I have previously asked how section 22 interferes with freedom of religion—for instance, where it goes against a woman’s religious practices to be touched by a man. I have given the example of a woman who goes into a doctor’s surgery for a smear test. You can ask for a female doctor in the practice—that is quite normal; my mother does that, as do a lot of my relatives and friends. Given that an individual with a GRC does not have to disclose it, there is the possibility that a woman could end up being seen by a biological male.

I have been made aware of that issue. People have concerns about the existing legislation, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 means that the issue might become more widespread. Were you aware of the issue before the bill was introduced? How will you seek to address it? It is important to balance trans rights and religious rights, whether we are talking about single-sex spaces or single-sex services, especially when they are required by people with a religious background.

First, I want to ask a supplementary question on the back of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s questions about single-sex spaces.

Cabinet secretary, you have made it clear that single-sex spaces are not affected by the bill. Do you think that the Government or you in particular could have done something different to help people who oppose the bill to better understand what it does and does not do? Have any lessons been learned? There are a lot of concerns out there—people stop me in the streets in my constituency to talk about their concerns. Have you learned lessons that will be helpful if we are not going to suspend the bill at stage 1 and are instead going to press ahead with the passage of the legislation?

My next question is about the situation in other countries. In previous meetings, a concern was raised about the issue of data collection on the basis of gender as opposed to sex and the potential impact that that could have on issues such as the gender pay gap. I asked Senator Doherty whether Ireland’s introduction of the self-identification policy had resulted in anything that might be concerning. She said that that issue was missed at the time and not brought to light but that she felt that it was something that she had to look at now, because there is a gap there. What are your thoughts about the gender pay gap and data collection?

Lastly, we heard in private from an organisation that said that this change would drive women, especially from ethnic minority groups, more underground, because they would not go into many single-sex spaces such as changing rooms. Do you believe that if those women cannot have that single-sex space to themselves they will be driven more underground? I welcome the fact that you have said that employers will hopefully have in their employment contracts and guidance that, with regard to a trans person, they will be sensitive on religious grounds, if someone, say, wanted to see a doctor.

Could you help me and the people who are watching this session understand this a little bit better? In a previous evidence session, there was a conversation about a situation in which—I have to get the terminology right—a person who is a trans person now but who was born as a male was on a higher salary than their women colleagues. How would you balance that out? Obviously, at a certain time in their life, that person could have been being paid as a male—as we know, there is a big gender pay gap between females and males. If colleagues working with a trans woman are on less pay, how do we work that out?

I have just two more questions, on single-sex spaces and on religion.

The committee has heard concerns—obviously, you have heard them as well—that the system of self-declaration will open up the bill to abuse by bad-faith actors who could invade women’s single-sex spaces. What is your response to those concerns and will you be considering provisions such as blocking people convicted of sex crimes from obtaining a GRC through self-declaration? If not, can you tell the committee what the bill does to address the concerns about the safety of women and girls in relation to bad-faith actors who may exploit the bill?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Of those who responded to the short survey, 59 per cent were not in favour of the proposed reforms. I have also received numerous pieces of correspondence from individuals who feel that their views have not been represented or heard. This committee’s members and, particularly, clerks, have had to make last-ditch attempts to secure witnesses in order to ensure that the scrutiny of the bill is more balanced. They have had to include last-minute private evidence sessions, outwith parliamentary time, to ensure that those who are affected by the bill will be heard from. We have received a large number of additional written submissions in a short period of time and there simply has not been enough time to scrutinise such an important bill.

Cabinet secretary, do you agree that stage 1 has been rushed through and that those who are affected by the bill—as well as the committee members and democracy more generally—would benefit from a more thorough approach and longer timescales for the evidence sessions? Do you believe that it would be beneficial to delay stage 1 of the bill?

Thank you for your response, cabinet secretary. I have two points to make on that. I will go back to your predecessor in a minute but, with regard to what you said about us having had lengthy consultation and about people being heard, I am not the only member of this committee who has been receiving emails about this matter. Why do you think that people are saying that they have not been heard?

My experience is that the process has been very tiring. Last week, three sessions were crammed into one week and, this week, there are two sessions. Cabinet secretary, what would you say to people who are listening to this meeting and feel that they have not been heard? This bill is now at the end of stage 1, so it is going through.

Thank you for that response, cabinet secretary. You mentioned your predecessor, Shirley-Anne Somerville. She announced a delay in June 2019, in order to take account of additional issues that had been raised since the consultation, and sought to build consensus on the way forward. Why did the Scottish Government only agree to hold meetings with those who oppose the bill between January and March 2022, when, arguably, it was too late to influence policy?

In addition, what have you taken forward in response to points or concerns that were raised about that section of the bill?

I have another question—