Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you mean the impact in other countries that have already done this?

I am happy to talk about gender identity healthcare, which is a whole area in itself. Obviously, such matters do not specifically come under the bill’s provisions, which are about obtaining a GRC, but we do not believe that there is evidence of any impact in any other country where a statutory declaration has been introduced. That is where we look for any impact.

The number of people who are going through gender identity healthcare is very small and the issue is not related to the bill. After all, someone does not require a GRC to undertake such healthcare. We are aware of the pressures on those services, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is making further investment to improve the situation, but the two things are really not related. Someone can access that healthcare without ever having to apply for a gender recognition certificate. Similarly, someone can apply for a certificate under the statutory recognition process without ever going anywhere near gender identity healthcare. It goes back to a point that was made earlier: the two issues are really quite different and need to be treated so.

The first consultation on gender recognition reform discussed legal gender recognition for non-binary people and the extent to which it would require significant changes to devolved areas such as parentage, marriage and registration law and to reserved areas such as the Equality Act 2010, as well as requiring financial and administrative resources for implementation. It would be very complex indeed, and, if it was to be the direction of travel, any such changes would require much further consideration and consultation. We therefore decided not to extend legal gender recognition to non-binary people in the bill.

You rightly point to the working group on non-binary equality that was established. It has very recently made its recommendations to the Scottish Government, which we are considering and will respond to. The report will be published in short order in the near future—by which I mean in the next couple of weeks.

I alluded earlier to the fact, which I will reiterate now, that applying for and receiving a gender recognition certificate and clinical decisions on gender identity healthcare are entirely separate issues. However, we recognise that referrals to and waiting times for gender identity services for both adults and young people have increased in recent years, which is why action has already been taken.

Last December, we published the NHS gender identity services strategic action framework, which demonstrates a commitment to wanting to improve matters. We are investing £9 million over three years, with £2 million being allocated this year, to try to make improvements. A reference group has been established to lead on co-ordinating that work. That will take a bit of time, but we acknowledge that waiting times for support are not where we would want them to be, which is why that investment has been made.

Given that, as a general principle, a GRC obtained overseas would be recognised in Scotland, confirmatory GRCs should not, in theory, be widely needed. The bill provides for them in cases in which someone is having difficulty obtaining that recognition or wants clear evidence of the legal recognition of their lived gender—that might apply to someone fleeing a war-torn country, for example, where they do not have access to records. It will be a tiny number of cases, but the provision has such things in mind, as I understand it. Is that right, Peter?

Obviously, that is not directly related to the bill. A situation such as you describe would come under the existing processes in the 2004 act.

I understand that, in its submission, Close the Gap said that the number of people involved will be so small that it will have no statistical impact. I think that Close the Gap, Engender and people working in the area of fair work are far more concerned about the gender pay gap between men and women that exists across huge areas of employment, and that their view is that the numbers that are involved in the area that we are discussing are so tiny that they would not impact statistically on the figures.

Obviously, people do not need a gender recognition certificate to access the spaces that we are talking about. The trans community has been accessing spaces that align with their acquired gender probably for as long as we have all been around, and possibly longer. The exceptions and exemptions under the legislation relate to services—for example, services that support victims of sexual assault or rape, which I cited earlier. In that case, as long as doing so is proportionate, it is legitimate to exclude trans women—it could be trans men in other cases—from a service. The 2010 act sets out clearly that there must be a proportionate response, which I think is absolutely right. The bill will change none of that.

I think that they do because the legislation requires a proportionate response so that people are not excluded in a disproportionate way.

My only other observation is that the private space that the committee has created has been good for allowing people who are concerned about the bill, and people from the trans community who feel excluded and affected deeply by some of the debate that has been going on, to express views. The committee has provided a space for anyone who would rather give their view and opinion in private. I commend the committee for that; it has allowed you to hear evidence that might otherwise not have been heard.

On the first point, I have been a member of committees that have taken lots and lots of evidence. As committee members, we want to hear as many views as possible, and it is the role and purpose of committees to look at that detail.

It is fair to say that there is a body of opinion and that this is a polarised discussion. I will not pretend otherwise. Members, including you and I, have been contacted by people who are strongly in favour of the bill and people who are strongly opposed to it. Sometimes, the reasons for people’s opposition are related not to the provisions of the bill but to wider concerns—some of which we will touch on today and some of which I tried to outline in my opening remarks—that the bill is not concerned with.

What it all boils down to is that we have to be guided by the evidence. The committee has heard some compelling evidence. Last week, that was led by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which got to the nub of the issues by giving evidence about countries that have adopted a statutory declaration process. That evidence showed that once those countries have those processes in place, the concerns such as those that have been expressed by the people who are emailing you or me have not come to fruition. The Scottish Human Rights Commission was clear that it could find no body of evidence to show that the things that people were concerned about—such as the threat to women and girls or a major change in society as we know it—had happened in those countries, and I have no reason to believe that Scotland would be any different from that.

However, it is important that we do the annual reporting on the bill. I know that the committee has taken evidence about whether there should be a post-legislative review of the legislation, to make sure that nothing emerges that we had not predicted. I am very sympathetic to that and, if the committee were to recommend that, I would give it due consideration, because I think that it is important that we look at the operation of any piece of legislation.

I am sorry, will you explain that to me again?