Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, councils have autonomy over 93 per cent of their funding, which is about £12.3 billion of funding for 2023-24. For the other Scottish Government portfolios, I can give you some examples. There is quite a list, so I can write to the committee with the full list, if that would be helpful. It includes, for example, a new £22 million for additional adult social workers; a new £32 million through the whole family wellbeing fund to support families to stay together and reduce the number of children in care; a new £2.4 million for local heat and energy efficiency strategies; an additional £100 million for health and social care to support the increase in the real living wage; an increase of £16 million for free school meals; and £521.9 million to support the expansion of funded early learning and childcare.

As I said, there is quite a list, and I have just been told that it is in table 5.16 of the budget document, but we can write to the committee as well, if that would be helpful. There is also additional capital of £80 million for some of the infrastructure costs for free school meals.

That said, I know that you will be aware of the discussions that we are having with local government about increasing flexibility. That is the right discussion to have. We need to find a way forward to achieve confidence in some of the priorities being delivered, if that is not being done through ring fencing.

As you will know, in the chamber Scottish Government ministers are often asked about the delivery of local government policies. We would need assurance about those joint priorities if we were to move away from ring fencing on some of those matters. From my portfolio interests, including local government, I am very much in favour of trying to do that, but we need to do it in a properly organised way.

Yes. Definitely.

We know that the social security budget is a great example of how the agreement does not work. The limitation on borrowing powers is a major impediment, and that has been exposed hugely through Covid and the cost of living crisis. As a matter of urgency, those are issues that need to be opened up. If we can get that opened up, and if we can get a different budget settlement for the Scottish Government for those flexibilities and borrowing powers, that would have a knock-on benefit to parts of the public sector. Therefore, that is very important.

Discussions have been mooted, but they are not in any way at a detailed level, as far as I am aware. Is that correct, Ian?

It is also important that, with such tiny numbers, we do not identify a person.

I agree with members that it will be important to review and report on the legislation, and I am content that we have a requirement on that in the bill.

Several amendments have been lodged that relate to the operation and impact of the bill across a number of areas. We need to consider carefully the areas in which it is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered and the most suitable timescales in order to ensure the effectiveness of any review.

I am happy to undertake to review the operation and effect of the bill. I consider that the best approach will be to have a single review that covers a range of suitable areas, some of which are covered by amendments that have already been lodged.

I agree with the timescales in some of the amendments. The timescale should be three years after the new system has been established, to allow for the system to bed in and for data to be collected. Therefore, I will seek to coalesce a number of reporting requirements in some of the amendments that have been lodged into a single provision for post-legislative scrutiny at stage 3. In line with that approach, I can support some of the amendments in the group, with a view to further work being done at stage 3. I do not support other amendments, but I will consider all the issues in developing a proposal for stage 3.

I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 145 in principle, as it would place a duty on ministers to initiate a review of the act within three years of commencement. That is an appropriate timescale for ensuring an effective review. I will use that as the basis and include other items at stage 3.

However, I cannot support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 146, which would impose too broad a requirement in relation to reporting on the bill’s impact on the Equality Act 2010 and healthcare in prisons. As I said at the outset, we need to consider carefully what is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered about and reported on.

On that point, the NHS will, through the patient rights charter, try to accede to someone’s demands and needs. However, in some circumstances—say, with a very small specialty that can be carried out by only a very small number of NHS professionals—that will not always be possible. Pam Gosal herself has recognised that the NHS will try to accede to needs and demands, where possible.

On her other point, the discussion that we had with the Faith & Belief Forum, which comprises various religious leaders from various faiths, was very full, frank and open, and no one had any qualms about giving me their views either in favour of or in opposition to the bill. That was absolutely right and proper.

It would be for the NHS to manage that situation. I do not believe that NHS professionals would want to put themselves in a position in which they were giving medical support to someone who did not want them to give them that support.

The NHS would, and does, manage such situations. We cannot legislate for something like that situation, so it would be for the NHS to manage it, as it currently does. The NHS currently manages difficult situations in which someone may not want a particular person to manage their care for a whole variety of reasons, whether that is right or wrong. People make demands around their own requirements, and the NHS—as you said yourself—will try to accede to those demands where possible, doable and reasonable. It does so day to day, and we should enable it to continue to do that in the way that it currently does.

I do not support amendments 139 and 140. I said last week, and I reiterate, that applying for and receiving a gender recognition certificate and clinical decisions about gender identity healthcare are separate issues. The bill is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. A GRC is not required in order to access gender identity healthcare, and there has never been a requirement for someone to have undergone surgery or any other medical treatment in order to obtain a GRC under the 2004 act.

I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf, has written to the committee setting out all the actions that his officials and the NHS are taking in order to address some of the concerns about gender identity healthcare, not least some of the waiting times, which were mentioned earlier. It is for the health service to resolve those issues, rather than addressing them in a bill that is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

Maybe I could just finish this point.

I have explained the effect of the bill. However, I have had discussions with members who are keen for the bill to include a provision on interaction with the 2010 act, as they have said when moving their amendments. Amendment 37, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, the bill does not modify the 2010 act. I can support that amendment if the committee chooses to agree to it. It covers the entirety of the 2010 act rather than specifying particular sections or elements of it.

I was going to go on to address amendments 23 and 104, but perhaps I could pause at this point.

As others have said, a later group of amendments will deal with the bill’s interaction with the Equality Act 2010. Amendments in that group seek to clarify that the bill does not change all or part of that act, and I state now that I propose to support an amendment stating

“For the avoidance of doubt”

that this bill does not modify that act. There are, I believe, specific circumstances that justify such an approach, but, in general, provisions that simply state “for the avoidance of doubt” something that is very clearly the case add nothing of value to legislation.

On amendment 21, the bill amends specific sections of the 2004 act. It does not amend section 12, which states:

“The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.”

Because we are clearly not changing that part of the act, amendment 21 is entirely unnecessary and I do not support it.

I do not support Tess White’s amendments 135 and 142, which seek to introduce a duty for ministers to take steps to promote understanding of the bill and to report on that within six months of royal assent. The Scottish Government has held two of the largest public consultation exercises ever undertaken for a Scottish bill and we have published impact assessments, explanatory notes and a policy memorandum. Further information is available on our website. The committee has also conducted a public consultation and taken evidence, producing a thorough and very detailed report. We have engaged with stakeholders and will continue to do so as part of our implementation work, should the bill pass, and we will, of course, engage with users in designing the application process. National Records of Scotland will provide guidance on the process for and the effects of obtaining a GRC. Christine Grahame’s amendment 71, which was agreed to last week, also ensures that all necessary information will be made available on the National Records of Scotland website.

I also do not support Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 137 and 138, which state:

“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act alters the effect of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights”

while also requiring regulations on the interaction of the bill with article 9. As the committee knows, acts of this Parliament cannot alter the effect of the convention. The amendment brings ambiguity, not clarity. It is not clear what sort of provision could be made in regulations under amendment 138 or who that provision would be addressed to.

I turn to Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 111. As the committee heard in evidence, the Scottish Prison Service already uses comprehensive individualised risk assessments to determine how trans prisoners are managed, whether or not those prisoners have a gender recognition certificate. I am happy to repeat that today, for the sake of the record. Adding provisions to the bill that simply state

“For the avoidance of doubt”

something that is very clearly the case do not generally add value to our laws. Therefore, I do not support amendment 111, but hope that I have given reassurance by emphasising again the Scottish Prison Service’s comprehensive individual risk assessment process.