Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, guidance will be issued on a number of elements of the bill.

Let me be clear about the general occupational requirement exception. That does not change, because it is part of the Equality Act 2010. I can provide an example. If someone was working in the field of providing intimate care, it is, as is the case at the moment, absolutely legitimate for a patient or someone receiving social care to say who they do and do not want to provide that service. That is underpinned by the general occupation exception under the 2010 act. This bill does not change that at all. It remains as was. The important thing that I said in my statement was that the bill does not take any rights away. It does not give any more responsibilities or rights to anybody. What it does is to set out the change in the process for GRC, but the elements that I have referred to do not change at all.

No, I think I got it. It was about what I said in my statement about moving away from gender dysphoria being regarded as a mental disorder.

As I said in my statement, central to our view of a balanced and proportionate way of improving the system is removal of the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, for all the reasons that I outlined in the statement and in response to questions so far. The bill sets out that the application process will be based on a statutory declaration that will be made by the applicant. I have set out why I think that so few members of the trans community have a GRC.

As I mentioned in my statement, the World Health Organization’s role in recategorising gender identity as related to health has been helpful. Trans identity was previously thought of as a mental health disorder, but the WHO took that step to reflect that it is not a mental ill health condition, and that classifying it as such can cause distress.

It is worth noting that the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, in its “Reform of the Gender Recognition Act” report, which was published in December, called for substantial changes, including demedicalisation of the process. There is recognition, not only in Scotland, that the process needs to be reformed; we can lead the way on that.

That is an important point. We have always achieved rights for each other when we have stood together to strive for further rights and equality. The bill is about ensuring the achievement of current rights by allowing trans people to have better access to their existing rights to legal gender recognition. It is not about giving new rights to trans people. As I have said before, the bill does not change anyone else’s rights.

The process to obtain legal recognition of gender has been around for 18 years. However, the consultation has shown that the current system is a barrier to many people who would otherwise apply. That is something that the bill will resolve.

I again stress the point that the elements and protections under the Equality Act 2010 remain—the exceptions are important. The Scottish Government supports those exceptions and the bill does not make any changes to them.

I know that the issues that Ruth Maguire has raised about the potential impact of the changes on single-sex spaces and services have been a clear focus. I want to provide further reassurance on that—as I did in my statement. I have made it clear today and in my engagement with people that the bill does not make any changes at all to the current position on the Equality Act 2010 protections—all it does is simplify a process that has been in existence for 18 years for obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

It is important to say that trans people do not need to have legal gender recognition or a certificate in order to access facilities that align with their gender. Those are protections that trans people and everyone else have under the Equality Act 2010, and nothing in what we are proposing will change that act or current practices.

On what Ruth Maguire outlined could be said of the current process—which trans people have used for years, with no evidence of widespread harm—although we may refer to facilities such as toilets and changing rooms as single-sex spaces, they are not legally defined as such under the Equality Act 2010 and, of course, GRCs are not necessary to access them.

On the wider point about healthcare provision and single-sex services, which could include refuges and therapy groups, the Equality Act 2010 provisions will be unchanged. The act sets out the protected characteristics and provides for exceptions. As I mentioned earlier in response to Claire Baker’s question, there is a general occupational requirement exception, which can be applied in relation to health services when that is appropriate—for example, where intimate health and personal care services are provided.

Our public services have managed those issues for many years. I understand that the EHRC will revise guidance. Perhaps that will help public bodies with the practicalities of how they manage those issues. However, the reality is that they have managed them for many years.

I am happy to keep discussing the details of those matters with Ruth Maguire and others as we take the bill forward.

The bill is not a fait accompli. It has just been introduced in Parliament and it will be for Parliament—Conservatives and everybody else across the chamber—to scrutinise it, to look at the evidence, to hear all the different views about it and then to come to a conclusion about whether it should be supported. Our role as legislators is to scrutinise the evidence, which will be important.

I have spent a lot of time in meetings with people who are very supportive of the bill and with people who are vehemently opposed to it. I have tried to go through some of the issues and concerns that they have raised. I am not sure whether fears have been allayed, but it is fair to say that some of the fears and concerns are not directly related to the proposals in the bill; rather, there is general wider concern, which the bill will not change. There are issues that we could say relate to existing processes. However, fears are fears, and we have to do what we can to address concerns. I will continue to do that.

On the specific question about changes, I will mention one of the important changes that arose from listening to concerns. I was asked about how we will monitor the impact of the legislation. In response to that, we have introduced a new provision in the bill that requires annual reporting on the operation of the legislation. Ireland has done such reporting on the legislation there for seven years, including on things such as the number of GRCs that have been issued. That is a concrete example of what we have done, having listened to concerns. The bill was changed accordingly.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her remarks and for her questions.

It has taken time to get to this point, and I think that we all understand the reasons: the complexity of the issue, and the two consultations. Getting to this moment has been a difficult process. That is the fact of the matter.

It is absolutely essential that everyone’s rights are protected. As I set out in my statement, it is as important to set out what the bill does not do as it is to set out what it does. I therefore remind people that the legislation is about changing the process by which someone obtains a gender recognition certificate; it does not change any of the rights that are already held under the Equality Act 2010. That is important. Specifically, on single-sex services, I made it clear that there are exceptions whereby transgender people—even those who have a gender recognition certificate—can, in certain circumstances, be excluded from those services.

It is important that we try to build consensus. Part of that involves focusing on the evidence and on what the bill proposes, rather than on some of the other matters that are not related to the bill but that sometimes circulate around the discussion of the issue.

Over the past few months, I have tried to meet people who have pretty different views on the bill: from those who wanted us to go further with the bill to those who did not want the bill at all. In those discussions, I tried to focus on what the bill is trying to do, rather than on the issues that are not related to it. I will continue to do that, and I will have an open-door policy. However, it is the responsibility of all of us in this chamber to focus on the bill and try to answer the questions as best we can.

Yes. However, we continue to consider the impact of the bill, and the Parliament will do so as part of its evidence gathering and scrutiny of that evidence.

I am more than aware of the EHRC’s correspondence and communication about the issue. I continue to correspond with the EHRC, because I want to know which evidence base it looked at before changing position from encouraging all of us, a year ago—before the Scottish Parliament election—as its number 1 ask, to include the demedicalisation process, to quite a different position now. It is entitled to do that, but we are also entitled to ask what the evidence base is for that. I am sure that the committee and the Parliament will consider that, but I am happy to continue to keep that dialogue open.

Yes, I agree with that. Trans people just want to be able to get on with their lives, as part of society, without facing prejudice and harassment. They want their legal documentation to reflect the way that they are already living their lives. That is a reasonable thing to ask and we should all work towards that goal.

As we have said a lot, the way that we talk about these issues matters. We know that a bad discourse on the issue has a direct effect on the trans community. I said in my statement that there has been a rise in hate crime with a transgender aggravator, which we should all be concerned about.

As with all debates on equality issues, it is really important to try to show empathy and understanding, and to appreciate that other people’s experiences and feelings may be different from our own but that does not make them less valid.

I absolutely agree with Rona Mackay. We need to listen to the voices of some of the most marginalised people in our society.

The latest data suggests that, in 2019, an estimated 80,000 households across the 16 local authorities in Central Scotland were on a housing list or had applied for social housing in the previous 12 months. However, we know that that figure will include households who are already living in a social home, as well as households who are looking to access the social sector.

Ensuring that everyone has a warm, affordable home that meets their needs is a priority for the Government, which is why we are committed to delivering 110,000 new affordable homes by 2032.

I think that I caught most of that.

Tackling empty homes is a priority for the Scottish Government, and we have set out a range of actions in “Housing to 2040” to help make better use of what is essentially a wasted resource. We continue to invest in the successful approach of the Scottish Empty Homes Partnership, which has brought more than 6,000 homes back into use since 2010.

We will of course look at ideas that are brought forward in other places and are happy to look at what Wales is doing. However, we have existing measures, including, for example, the additional dwelling supplement, which second-home buyers pay, short-term let control areas for secondary letting and powers for local authorities to vary or remove the council tax discount on second homes.

We are already taking a lot of action, but I am happy to look at any other ideas that Mark Griffin or anyone else might bring forward.