Seòmar agus comataidhean

I organised a round-table meeting with the faith groups, at which there were people from every faith, and their view was that they had not been consulted. I just wanted to put it on record that more than 60 people from every single religion were there, and they told me that they had not been consulted.

Thank you, convener. I seek clarification on what Pam Gosal asked about. Has the Scottish Government consulted the faith groups? I support what has been described because, much of the time, when a religious person goes into hospital—unless they are in an emergency situation, which anyone can see—they have a choice and they can ask. However, the cabinet secretary did not make it clear in what she said. If faith groups have been consulted, I would like to know who they are.

My amendment makes it clear that the Equality Act 2010 needs to be taken into account when considering the final GRR bill. If the bill is passed, can women be absolutely confident that men will not be present in spaces reserved for women, whether that is a single-sex hospital ward, women and girls sporting activities, women’s refuges or those spaces reserved for women to practise their religion?

Like Pam Gosal, I am a new MSP, and this is my first time speaking to an amendment, so please be kind to me.

My amendment 104 intends to ensure that there is no contradiction between the provisions in the bill and the Equality Act 2010. It is a compromise. I was advised that the best way to achieve that aim would be to insert an exception into the 2004 act—for example, in section 15 or section 16—to ensure that that legislation would have the same effect as my amendment would in Scotland. Unfortunately, that was ruled out of the scope of the bill; I should say that I do not entirely agree with that. The reasoning was that the bill is to do with the process of getting a GRC in Scotland, not what a GRC does. However, the question of what a GRC does is implicit in the bill. Why else would the question of whether a GRC legally changes one’s sex for the purposes of the 2010 act have been raised in our business at all?

When some have made it clear that their view is that a GRC changes one’s legal sex, and others have made it clear that that would render the legal protections for single-sex spaces in the 2010 act impossible to maintain, it is important to clarify that point. I hope that the minister will clarify in her response whether the Scottish Government believes that a GRC that is granted under this legislation would change one’s legal sex as well as one’s gender. My amendment seeks to clarify that point as far as is allowable within the scope of the bill, in order to ensure that nothing in the bill overrules the existing protections or definitions in the 2010 act.

I appreciate the efforts of Pam Duncan-Glancy and Rachael Hamilton to achieve that aim through similar means. However, my amendment differs in specifically adding clarity on the definitions in the 2010 act.

The EHRC briefing that was circulated to MSPs voiced its support for clarifying the relationship with sections 11 and 212 of the 2020 act, with a view to addressing cross-border complexities. It said:

“By broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland.”

In short, if we do not make the matter clear in the bill, we will be inviting legal challenges to clarify contradictions that we as legislators will have created. I do not believe that that is a responsible approach to creating legislation on matters that are so important.

Recently, I held a round-table meeting with people who represented many of Scotland’s faith communities. They were unanimous in voicing their concern about the ability to maintain the single-sex spaces that are required for their religious purposes. Participants even noted that there was little support from the Scottish Government when it comes to the practicalities of implementing such law. They said that there is a sense that the rules are handed down from MSPs in ivory towers and that it is left for everyone else to deal with the consequences. In this case, the consequences will include places of worship and low-paid front-line workers having to work out how to police single-sex spaces themselves.

It cannot be right that we invite those legal contradictions and then expect religious organisations and low-paid workers, for example, to navigate the resulting legal minefield. Therefore, there must be clarity in the bill on the relationship with the 2010 act. That is why I lodged my amendment.

EHRC guidance supports my amendments. The EHRC thinks that it is not only relevant but important to clarify the issue for the purpose of cross-border certainty. It said in its briefing:

“By broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland.”

Those significant implications mean that it is important for us to make the bill as clear as possible.

Can I say a few words here?

Will this not put employers at risk, cabinet secretary? What support will the Scottish Government provide to employers? I think that it opens up a load of arguments for everyone, and it is totally unnecessary. The matter needs to be clarified.

Do you think that it should be more clear? Do you think that removing something to accommodate somebody else is right? Should it not be balanced? Should we not give equal opportunity to everyone and listen to everyone?

For the record, cabinet secretary, what is your interpretation of the 2010 act?

How will the third sector be integrated into the long-term delivery of the national care service? I know that the minister has given a lot of examples, but I am not clear on how it will be integrated in that regard.