Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

In legislation, there is an assumption that a young person has the capacity to make a decision unless a professional says otherwise—on a case-by-case basis. Would that be a useful addition to this bill in order to protect young people?

Probably both, but I am specifically asking about annual reporting. Indeed, my next question is about annual reporting and whether you are prepared to commit to carrying out a post-legislative review and, indeed, whether you are prepared to consider the impact of including or not including non-binary gender recognition, perhaps within a year of the bill being passed.

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?

I am keen to talk a little about the child poverty delivery plan in the context of the flat cash allocations elsewhere, outside the social security portfolio.

Both cabinet secretaries have talked this morning about a 17 per cent rate of child poverty. However, they will be aware that both Save the Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an independent analysis, the “Delivering for Families?” report, this week. The report said:

“it is hard to conclude that the”

child poverty

“Plan fully delivers a comprehensive set of activity that will meet its lofty ambitions. A stronger prescription is needed to meet the diagnosis.”

I think that the committee will concur with me that we have heard evidence from third sector organisations that the plan, while it had “lofty ambitions”, to use the term from the report, was a bit light on detail.

The independent report says that the Government is likely to miss the targets and that families might have to “freeze or eat”. Those are quite strong words, but they come from an independent analysis.

In the context of that report, will you comment on how you expect to meet the child poverty target? In particular, it appears that it took quite some time to get to the point of taking enough action, so it is possible that the only option now is the Scottish child payment, but I think that it is important to look elsewhere. What is the plan to meet those targets now that it looks as though you are going to miss them?

Thank you for that answer, cabinet secretary. Of course that is the case, and increasing employability options has to be the way forward so that people can get out of, and stay out of, poverty.

However, at this point, organisations are saying—as they were even at the beginning of the current session of Parliament—that action on reducing the structural inequality that exists in society has not been significant enough and that the only option was to use mechanisms such as the Scottish child payment.

I take your point that the organisations used slightly different modelling. Nonetheless, they state in the report that they used the same figures and modelling as the Government used and still could not get to the point that the Government got to.

I am interested to hear what more you are going to do to meet those targets. By the Government’s own estimate, we might just get there; independent analysis says that we will not. It is fair to say, therefore, that more action is needed. So, what other actions is the Government going to take?

Can you confirm whether the review will look at the three-year funding proposals? Can you update the committee on how you are implementing three-year funding proposals, particularly for money advice services?

Good morning, minister, and hello again, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your opening statements.

I wholly concur that high-quality advice is one of the most important issues. The committee has heard from various advice providers that they are absolutely burst at the seams. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland told us that staff working in the bureaux are actually going to bed at night worrying about the same money problems for which they are having to support people during the day. Money advice services are in a very difficult environment right now, but we have seen a 10-year decline in funding for those services. How will the cabinet secretary and the minister address that? Do they accept that people need more and not fewer services at this point?