Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will conflate two slightly different issues, but they come down to the same point, which is how we gain a better understanding of inflation and our lack of growth.

There are some things for which we do not have accurate insight or an accurate measure. First, we still have relatively higher energy prices compared with Europe, especially for electricity generation. That does not entirely make sense to me, especially if we compare the situation directly with that in other countries with similar energy production composition, such as the Netherlands. Electricity prices in the Netherlands are about 20 per cent lower than they are in the UK.

Given how expensive the energy intervention is, do we need to compare more carefully what we have done in the UK on the price cap with what other countries have done? I can understand why different countries might be different if the composition of their energy production or consumption is different, but the Netherlands is comparable with the UK in its economic mix and production. Do we need to examine that more carefully and try to measure it, given that the point is becoming so critical?

Likewise, you said that we do not quite know why we have had a lack of growth in the past 10 years but, broadly, we know that the fundamental problem that we have in the UK is a lack of Government and private sector investment. Do we need to measure that more carefully and precisely? In your previous answer, you mentioned the cuts in capital investments. Do we need to measure our energy market and investment more closely? Would it help our fiscal position if we understood them better?

I thank the committee for welcoming to the meeting those of us who have lodged amendments. Let me be clear: I am fully convinced that we need reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Ensuring that people have a straightforward, understandable and non-stigmatising way to have what is a fundamental part of their identity recognised in law is really important. In so doing, however, it is vitally important that we understand that we do that within the context of broader law, and that the laws that we pass have consequences and impacts for policy and practice beyond their immediate scope.

We have to acknowledge—indeed, I think that we have already heard it implicitly acknowledged this morning—that the Equality Act 2010 is robust and has stood up well in the 12 years since it was passed. It has protected the rights of many, partly because it has been able to move and reflect, and to be nuanced, in the way that it is understood.

Fundamental to the 2010 act’s ability to do that is the fact that it did not set up protected characteristics as siloed boxes or distinct categories; it set them up as balanced perspectives and sought to balance rights, identities and characteristics in context. Fundamentally, the act recognises nuance and context in the understanding of those aspects and embeds them in the way in which the law is applied. In short, the act works because nuance and context matter—they are at the very heart of the way in which the act operates.

That is what I seek to do through amendment 25, which seeks to require the Government to introduce broadly stated guidance on the

“interaction of this Act with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.”

The previous discussion acknowledged that point. In particular, I note the exchange between Claire Baker and Jamie Greene, which very much focused on that. Carol Mochan’s amendment 152—she has been unable to stay at the meeting in order to speak to it—also considers the point.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not and cannot change the Equality Act 2010, but it will change understanding and will lead public bodies to reflect on and revise their policies. Indeed, much of that has already happened. In simplifying the criteria for obtaining a GRC, it will widen the number of people who are likely to get one. I will see it as a sign of success if increased numbers of people do so. That is an important point; it was highlighted by the EHRC and it is important that we acknowledge it today.

My amendment is intended both to act as a probing amendment and to have practical effect. On the first point, it is important that we get clarification from the Government on its intention with regard to aspects that currently can be considered under the 2010 act, whether we want to describe those as physical, biological or genetic characteristics, and how they will continue to be validly considered as a matter of policy.

On the practical point, given the examples in recent years of clumsy—albeit very well-intentioned—decisions that have been made that have had consequences for a great number of people, it is important that there is practical assistance in place, so that we do not leave the people who are tasked with implementing public policy to just make it up. We need clear and robust guidance and assistance from Government so that those people have the clarity that they need to do their jobs.

I will go a little bit further. As I said at the outset, when it comes to identity, nuance and context matter. That is why I accept the right of people to self-identify when it comes to their gender. However, by the same token, if nuance matters, we cannot overlook or ignore nuances just because they are complicated. Someone’s chromosomes, anatomy and physiology certainly do not define them, but, if nuance and detail are important, we cannot completely disregard or ignore them.

The contexts in which those things are relevant are incredibly narrow, but where they are relevant, they are incredibly important. When we are talking about situations such as physical examinations, which we have heard about already this morning, or those in which people are required to surrender their bodily privacy to others, we have to understand how and where we can relevantly discuss these matters and make decisions with others about them. It goes beyond the immediate scope of the bill. As well as for those people who can validly obtain a GRC, we already see the practice informing decisions being made by youth groups, sports groups and schools, and in other contexts. Therefore, it is important that we have clarity, provide guidance and understand the interaction between the bill, once it is passed, and the 2010 act.

Like many other members, I have had a huge number of people approach me in my constituency office and at my constituency surgeries. I do not share some of their concerns, but I have found some of them arresting and difficult to explain away. I will give just one example.

About a year ago, a woman came to speak to me and asked me how I would feel if my daughters attended a guides group and the guide leader was a trans woman. I said that I would not care in the slightest, as I do not think that that is relevant—as long as the person had gone through the relevant training and checks, I would not care at all.

Then they asked me how I would feel if I found out that, while doing an outdoor expedition, my daughter had been asked to share a tent with a male-bodied peer. Do I think that there should be an absolutely categorical cast-iron rule in those circumstances? No. Do I think that it should be discussed with me? Probably. Do I think that my daughter should have the ability to discuss that without being told that she is wrong or bigoted? Absolutely.

It is incredibly important that we have that ability to discuss and that we understand when it is relevant to focus on those elements, whether we describe them as anatomy, biology or physiology; otherwise, we will do a great deal of damage. In fact, we are putting the people responsible for implementing public policy in an invidious position.

I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to clarify whether she thinks that it is relevant to consider those things and, ultimately, to commit to bringing forward clear guidance for the very reasons that were discussed in connection with the previous discussion.

As I said at the beginning, ultimately, nuance and context matter, which is why we need guidance on the interaction between the bill and the Equality Act 2010.

I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about the narrow scope of the law, but I wonder whether she would consider the following aspects.

Although the bill does not alter the 2010 act, it deals with very much the same landscape. There are concepts and considerations here that, in terms of the practical implementation of public policy, public bodies will have to think about at the same time as they consider their duties under the 2010 act. Therefore, as a practical—if not a legal—consequence, there is overlap, as there always is in legislation.

I would go further. Regarding other legislation, the Government is on the record as saying that law is not simply the regulation of what can and cannot be prosecuted. Laws are also about communication and wider social impacts. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that there are consequences that go beyond the strict scope of the law that will have to be contended with by public bodies? I do not think that the cabinet secretary really answered the point that the EHRC made about the bill having an impact on the application of the 2010 act in Scotland. Does she acknowledge that point? What is the Government’s response to it?

That is a bit of a mischaracterisation. This is a small Parliament and every political party in it comes to positions through discussion and agreement. I assure Rachael Hamilton that, in a political group the size of ours, we arrived at our position in that way. It is therefore slightly unhelpful to characterise the position of the Labour Party as having been whipped.

Cabinet secretary, although you are quite correct to say that a person does not currently have to undergo a medical or surgical transition in order to obtain a GRC, and although I note that the bill is looking just at the process, it will—or should—have the practical effect of increasing the number of people in possession of a certificate. A situation or circumstance that is currently rare will become far more likely. It might well be a matter for the NHS, but if the bill is explicitly or implicitly about expanding the number of people in possession of a GRC, there must surely be greater consideration of how that will operate in practice and in the situations that Mr Choudhury and Ms Gosal have set out.

The member has highlighted a really critical point. Just as it would be wrong to place a prisoner in one estate rather than in another purely on the basis of self-declaration, it would be wrong never to consider which estate they should be in. It is very easy to understand that trans people will be particularly vulnerable in either estate, and the critical point is, as Jamie Greene has pointed out, that prisons have to make what is a nuanced, balanced and individualised assessment in that regard. What we should be seeking to do through this legislation is to ensure that the Prison Service is enabled and empowered to continue to make such balanced decisions and risk assessments, prisoner by prisoner. Does the member agree with the emphasis that needs to be made in that respect?

I echo Pauline McNeill’s point, and I would go further. If we accept your logic, cabinet secretary, that, essentially, there is no impact, and that it is open to public bodies, and indeed others, to use the exemptions set out in the Equality Act 2010, will you clarify that it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, such that public bodies and others can distinguish between people on the basis of physical characteristics, if we want to describe it like that, or however we want to capture it—I recognise the issues around the terminology and the differences between legal and commonplace definitions—that it is open for them to do so, and that they should do so where that is fair and proportionate, such as for school trips or shared accommodation? You might not wish to pick out particular examples, but can, or indeed should, public bodies use those distinctions, rather than simply using declared gender identity?

You said national standards, right at the beginning.

The point that I took from the Feeley report about commissioning—even just reading the executive summary—is that it needs to be more personalised. You are saying that there are likely to be fewer boards in the care service. To my mind, that means that things will be done further away from the person. Considering all the different points that were made in the Feeley report, which covers commissioning and standards, why have you pursued a model that involves creating national bodies that will oversee commissioning? To my mind, the Feeley report alludes to the possibility of reforming the inspection and quality regimes. Was that option explored, and was a financial comparison made of what the difference might be in pursuing that model, which would provide you with national accountability for standards? I am interested in what options were examined.

I believe that you did, minister. We will consult the Official Report but, if I misunderstood or misheard that, I offer many apologies. I was simply making an inference based on what I thought that you had said.

I imagine that a computer system will be pretty key to the delivery of the bill. Such systems are key to the delivery of any public service. Recently, Social Security Scotland’s computer system was estimated to cost around £250 million. Police Scotland did not get the funding for the new information technology records system that it needs, but it was estimated to cost £300 million. Disclosure Scotland’s IT system, which was delivered a few years ago, cost £80 million.

Although we do not know the precise detail of the IT requirements, it is fair to say that, in broad terms—in terms of range—we must be looking at a sum in the hundreds of millions of pounds, even in the lower range. Are those examples fair comparators when we think about the sorts of costs that might be incurred by the creation of an IT system for the national care service?