Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. In evidence to the committee and through engagement as part of my fact-finding work on the bill, I have heard that there is an obvious difference between capturing population-level data and capturing individual-level data. We have touched on population-level data.

When it comes to individual-level data, there are concerns about people falling off the radar for particular health services. I appreciate that this is not directly related to the bill, but I think that it is important that we consider the issue. I make it clear that I think that trans people absolutely understand their bodies—they are probably more mindful of their physical bodies than other people are, for various reasons. However, what more can the Government do to ensure that trans women and trans men are called for the health service to which they will need to be called, on the basis of biological characteristics that they might retain after getting a gender recognition certificate?

The Scottish Trans Alliance has a mechanism in place to do with community health index—CHI—number changes, which has worked in different areas. How could we support such an approach to data gathering?

I have a few questions on a number of topics, convener, but I will be as quick and succinct as I can. Thank you for your patience.

The British Psychological Society has said that medical pathways are not contingent on the GRA, but we have heard concerns about health services for trans people in general and in relation to their transition specifically. For example, there are waiting times of four years in some areas of Scotland; general practitioners could charge fees; and, of course, trans people can have really poor health and mental health outcomes. Cabinet secretary, are you in a position to commit to reviewing health services for trans people? What can you do to ensure that, should they wish to do so, trans people can get timely access to gender identity and support services?

My final question is about single-sex spaces. I appreciate that we have had extensive discussions about that today and throughout the committee’s evidence sessions.

We have touched on section 22 of the 2004 act and protected information. Has the Government decided that the bill does not impact on the exemptions? Have you considered whether there is need for further exemptions in relation to section 22? What guidance will the Government or others issue on the matter, and in particular on the general occupational requirement exception?

Yes. I have some other questions.

This gets to the heart of human rights, and it is ultimately about the human rights of trans people. Of course, trans people’s rights are human rights, not because they are trans but because they are human. We have heard in a lot of the evidence sessions about the importance of the human rights of everyone who is involved.

I am deeply disappointed by the public discourse around this particular debate, in which trans people have seen their rights being debated on opening the papers or watching the news; of course, women have also experienced that debate about rights, but human rights are inalienable, not debateable. I believe that a lot of that discourse is to do with the vacuum that was left by the Government between 2017 and 2019 and I am disappointed by that. What can the Government do to sort out this mess?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Could you set out what changes you have made and what equalities analysis you have done since the equality impact assessment in 2017 to 2019? We have heard concerns that there have not been many changes.

In the bill, it is set out that there will be regulations on the form and on the information that the registrar general will be able to collect. You have already touched on that—and I will come back to the issue of young people in a moment, if the convener allows it—but would you be prepared to publish the regulations for the registrar general ahead of the bill being finished at stage 2?

Thank you. My final question on this topic is about the prison service. We have briefly spoken about that and, notwithstanding the comments on the numbers involved, which are small, is it your view that, following the review of Scottish Prison Service guidance, a gender recognition certificate would not be considered as a kind of passport as it has been in other areas of the UK, and that the approach would remain risk based, both to the trans person and to the other people who are living in prison at the time? Would a risk-based approach still take precedence over the relevance of a GRC?

I am concerned that the instruments will increase the cost of accessing justice by 2 per cent in July and a further 2 per cent next April, at a time when disabled people are facing extreme cost of living increases. Some evidence that was submitted to the consultation on the increases highlighted that the exemptions and disregards for some income, including for disabled people, are not sufficient to ensure access to justice and protect against poverty. Therefore, I am concerned about the increases and note the concerns of organisations including Inclusion Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland.

Convener, I have some questions in other areas.