Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have just written to the secretary of state calling for our Governments to be part of any discussions with developers and that may impact on our countries.

We recognise that concentrations of second homes can affect community sustainability. Existing measures include the additional dwelling supplement that second home buyers pay, short-term let control areas for secondary letting, and existing powers that local authorities have to vary or remove council tax discount on second homes. In 2017-18, that meant that council tax income generated from second homes contributed £21.2 million towards the provision of affordable homes across Scotland.

I acknowledge Emma Roddick’s background of raising this important issue in the chamber. Through the “Housing to 2040” strategy, we are committed to providing more tools and powers to local authorities to support best use of existing housing stock. During the stakeholder discussions on the remote, rural and island housing action plan, we will engage with stakeholders about proposals on what additional powers are needed. Emma Roddick mentioned the taxation review. Work on the review had been paused due to Covid, but we will recommence it this year.

Published official statistics on local authority new-build homes show that, in the Central Scotland region, which includes the Falkirk, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire local authority areas, only 30 council homes were built between 1999-2000 and 2006-07, in comparison with 1,792 between 2007-08 and 2020-21. Since 2007, the Government has delivered 105,755 affordable homes across Scotland, more than 73,000 of which were for social rent, including nearly 17,000 council homes. I would have thought that everyone in the chamber would welcome that.

Yes—I agree with that. Fundamentally, this is about supporting people who are already living in their acquired gender. It is clear from our consultations that many trans people, who already have a right to legal gender recognition, feel discouraged from applying under the current system, for all the reasons that we have talked about during the statement and questions. It is also clear that those who have gone through the process have found it to be lengthy, invasive and intrusive, having had their life circumstances and very personal details considered by a tribunal.

The bill seeks to remove those barriers to people accessing their human rights by removing the requirement for medical diagnosis and by reducing the period for which a trans person is currently required to evidence that they have lived in their acquired gender. It is important to say, however, that it will remain a serious and substantial process that will require applicants to make a statutory declaration that they intend to live the rest of their life in their acquired gender. In the case of a person making a false application, there will be a hefty fine—or, indeed, imprisonment in some circumstances.

I am glad that Karen Adam mentioned young people. I have heard directly from young people, who are very clear that they want to access these rights in an easier way, that there are too many barriers and that they want those rights when they become adults so that they can get on and live their lives as they want, in their acquired gender.

I think I got the gist of it.

Parliament sets the timetable for bills: the stage 1 debate, then stage 2 consideration and then stage 3. The role of the committee is crucial. Now that the bill has been introduced to Parliament, it is for Parliament to agree the timeframes in order to ensure that there is proper consultation and that Parliament can consider all the evidence. I hope that that reassures Paul O’Kane that we can get on with the job of getting the bill scrutinised and debated, now that it is in Parliament.

I have introduced the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which proposes reforms to simplify the process for trans men and women to obtain a gender recognition certificate. It is now for Parliament to consider the bill.

Trans people in Scotland risk inequality, harassment and abuse simply for living their lives. They are among the most marginalised people in our society. Recent Police Scotland statistics show increases in hate crimes with a transgender aggravator.

As a society, and a Parliament, we have a responsibility to protect and support minority groups that are at risk of harm. Under the Equality Act 2010, we have a legal duty to address discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and Scotland must have a system of gender recognition in order to comply with international human rights law.

The current system has been in place for the past 18 years. There is evidence from extensive consultation—two of the largest consultations ever undertaken by the Scottish Government and one from the United Kingdom Government—that applicants find the current system intrusive and invasive, overly complex and demeaning. Many trans people do not apply because of those barriers. That is why we propose to reform the process to make it simpler, more streamlined, more compassionate and less medicalised.

Our proposals for change and progress have caused discussion and debate. We know that some people have campaigned for such changes for years; we know that others have concerns. This afternoon, I will seek to allay some of those concerns by explaining what the bill does and—importantly—what it does not do.

It does not introduce new rights or remove rights; it does not change public policy or prevent single-sex services from being offered where appropriate; and it does not change rules or conventions that have been in place for years under the current system, for example in relation to access to toilets and changing rooms.

To anyone listening, I want to be clear that I will listen to the views of everyone, and to parliamentarians in and outwith the chamber, in a respectful manner throughout the passage of the bill. I urge everyone to do the same—as you did at the outset, Presiding Officer.

When it comes to gender recognition and wider issues that concern trans people, from healthcare to access to services, discussion has often become heated. I have often found the tone of debate on social media to be angry, unpleasant and abusive, both from trans people and from those who oppose gender recognition reform. I am concerned about the impact that that tone has, and particularly about how it further stigmatises and marginalises trans people in Scotland. That is not just an unacceptable way to behave towards other people; it is also unhelpful in getting a point of view across. We can disagree on issues without being offensive or abusive.

My meetings with stakeholders have shown that it is possible to have constructive, respectful conversations about the bill. I ask that the Parliament lead by example and that we work together to set a tone of respectful discussion with a focus on the specific reforms in the bill, just as we have done in the past, for example with same-sex marriage, which faced significant opposition at the time.

Trans people have been able to apply for legal gender recognition through a gender recognition certificate, or GRC, since 2004. Obtaining a GRC means that a trans person is legally recognised in their acquired gender and can obtain a new birth certificate that shows that gender. Not all trans people have a gender recognition certificate and no one is required to have one. The UK Government estimates that only around 6,000 of up to 500,000 trans people in the UK have a GRC.

Those without a GRC will often have made other changes, including to passports, driving licences and other official documentation. The bill’s reforms will move the law closer to how people already live their lives.

For clarity, the GRC provides the legal recognition of changing a birth certificate, and I say again that that right has been in place for 18 years. It is the mechanism for obtaining the GRC that we are changing—nothing else. We are not introducing new rights for trans people and, importantly, we are not removing or changing any for women and girls.

Central to the proposed reforms is the removal of the medical element of the process. We propose that GRCs be issued on the basis of statutory declaration made by the applicant, rather than on the basis of a tribunal judgment that is based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

The World Health Organization’s revised international classification of diseases, which was approved in 2019, redefined gender identity-related health and removed it from a list of “mental and behavioural disorders”. It took that step to reflect evidence that trans-related identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and that classifying them as such can cause distress.

Moving to a system that is based on personal declaration rather than medical diagnosis will bring Scotland into line with well-established systems in Norway, Denmark and Ireland, and recent reforms in Switzerland and New Zealand. We are aware of at least 10 countries that have introduced similar processes.

The process will remain serious and substantial. Making a false application will be an offence with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

The meetings that I have had over recent months while finalising the bill for introduction have allowed me to hear the range of views directly from stakeholders. I have heard from those who have concerns, and I have heard about the experiences of trans people who have been through the current process.

That work follows two of the largest consultations ever undertaken by the Scottish Government. The first, which in November 2017 sought views on the general principles of reform, received more than 15,500 responses, with 60 per cent agreeing that applicants for legal gender recognition should no longer need to produce medical evidence.

In December 2019, a second consultation on a draft bill received more than 17,000 responses. Although the consultation was qualitative, analysis of group responses showed that a majority supported reform.

We have published independent analyses of the consultations, providing valuable summaries of the range of views.

Through meetings that I have had, I know that we are not going far enough for some people and that others would like us not to introduce a bill at all. However, overall, the evidence from the consultations strengthens the argument for reform and shows that there is significant support for reforming the process of gender recognition.

Our consultations provide clear evidence of the negative impact that the current system can have on trans people. The UK Government consultation in 2018 and its LGBT survey in 2017 also provided such evidence. Many respondents describe the GRC application process as outmoded, discriminatory, overly complicated, humiliating and invasive, and, despite living in their gender for many years, many trans people have not applied for a certificate for those reasons. I have heard about individuals’ experiences of exclusion. I have heard of a trans woman who had transitioned nearly 30 years previously and therefore found the evidence requirements impossible, and of a trans man whose gender specialist had retired and whose national health service records had been lost, and who now cannot obtain a GRC despite having changed their passport and all other identification.

The analysis reports also set out the concerns of people who do not want reform. I know that some people are concerned about the potential impact on women and girls. I have met a number of people and groups, and I recognise that they feel deeply affected.

I am well aware of real and legitimate concerns about the violence, abuse and harassment that women and girls face in our society. However, trans people are not responsible for that abuse—indeed, they often face it themselves. We still live in a society in which, unfortunately, it is not hard to find sexist or misogynistic beliefs, and in which women and girls face violence at the hands of men. That is abhorrent and this Government is tackling it head on, providing support for services and focusing on prevention. We must be clear that all the evidence tells us that the cause of violence against women and girls is predatory and abusive men—not trans people. It is important that we do not conflate the two. There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.

We are committed to advancing equality for women and protecting women’s rights. That commitment is not affected by our support for trans rights. We strongly support the rights and protections that women have under the Equality Act 2010, including the single-sex exceptions. That part of the act means that an exception is applied to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In practice, that means that trans people can be excluded from single-sex services in some circumstances, where that is proportionate and justifiable. The act’s explanatory notes gives an example of a group counselling session for female victims of sexual assault. The bill does not amend the 2010 act. Nothing in the bill will erode or undermine women’s rights.

Some of the concerns that I have heard relate to issues under the current system that, it is argued, will be compounded by our reforms. Such concerns include policies that are implemented by service providers for changing rooms and toilets. Other than for communal residential accommodation, the 2010 act does not apply exceptions specifically to toilets and changing rooms. Trans people can and do use those now, whether they have a GRC or not, and they have been using them for many years.

The bill’s proposals have no direct effect on single-sex spaces, but I have heard arguments that suggest an indirect effect on two grounds: that there will be a significant increase in people obtaining gender recognition, or that the bill will drive a wider social shift. Based on international comparison, particularly with Ireland, which introduced a similar process seven years ago, we estimate that the number of applications might rise from around 30 to between 250 and 300 a year. That is a small number in the context of the size of the Scottish population. I have considered that and agree that we should monitor the impact of the changes, as with all legislation. I have therefore introduced new provision requiring annual reporting, including on the number of people who apply for and obtain a GRC. I hope that that will provide some assurance.

On the second argument about a wider societal shift, it is true that society moves on and attitudes change. We have seen that already with same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018. There is greater equality in and acceptance of how we live our lives, who we love and how we solemnise our relationships. That is surely a good thing.

The acceptance and better understanding of trans people is another positive shift in society. The recent BBC poll shows that the general public are more accepting on trans inclusion than a look at social media would suggest. That is particularly the case among young people and women. Like everyone else, members of the trans community have a right to live their lives without fear of prejudice and abuse.

The bill proposes that applicants must have lived in their acquired gender, but that the minimum period for that should be reduced from two years to three months, with an additional three-month reflection period. Some have argued for the requirement to be removed altogether, while others have argued for it to be kept at two years. Our view is that our approach strikes the right balance and provides valuable assurance.

We consulted on whether to lower the current minimum age for applicants from 18 to 16. We have carefully considered the issue, examining different views and evidence, and it is a question that is finely balanced. We have examined comparable systems in other countries, where a range of approaches are taken, including parental consent, a role for the courts and the requiring of evidence, and have considered those within a Scottish context. Those who have raised concerns say that under-18s are too young to make such an important decision. However, 16-year-olds can leave home, get a full-time job, change their name, consent to medical treatment, marry and vote.

Earlier this week, the Cabinet met the Scottish Youth Parliament, and members spoke eloquently about how young trans people feel excluded by a system that denies them access to legal recognition, particularly in the case of someone who wants to make the legal change before moving into further or higher education or employment.

We also recognise that such decisions are important, and it is vital that everyone who applies to the process, especially young people, fully understands and carefully considers the issues before doing so.

We have concluded that the minimum age should be reduced to 16, with support and guidance being provided to young people through schools, third sector bodies and National Records of Scotland. Under the oversight of the registrar general, National Records of Scotland will routinely give additional, careful consideration to applications from 16 and 17-year-olds. It will provide support on the process and, when necessary, will undertake sensitive investigation, which could include face-to-face conversations with applicants. Every 16 or 17-year-old who applies will be offered and encouraged to take up the option of a conversation with NRS to talk through the process.

One other change since the publication of the draft bill relates to the power to charge an application fee. There should be no financial barrier to achieving legal gender recognition. The draft bill included a power for the registrar general to set a fee for applications, but that has been removed. It is our view that no fee should be charged, and removing the power gives a clear commitment to that.

Four of the five parties in the Parliament made clear their support for reform in their recent manifestos. However, I recognise that, for individuals—as is the case within the public—there may be a range of views. I understand the views and concerns of those who oppose the reforms. Just because they disagree with the proposals, people should not be automatically labelled as transphobic. If everyone is respectful, we should all be able to discuss the proposals and our views in a civilised manner.

However, it is clear that transphobia exists and, as elected representatives, we must ensure that transphobic discourse does not seize on to the concerns that people have about the bill. It is in that context that it is so important that we discuss our differences of opinion and consider the evidence in a way that is measured and respectful. I will maintain an open-door policy for MSPs who want to discuss any aspect of the bill.

Following some of the most extensive consultation ever undertaken in Scotland, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is now introduced. It sets out the Scottish Government’s proposal for a balanced and proportionate way of improving the current system. It is now for the Parliament to consider it.

I am happy to take questions.

Yes, I do, and I think that we have made a good start on that, through your remarks, Presiding Officer—if you do not mind me saying that—and the tone of the comments and questions so far. If we can keep that up, I think that we can lead by example in dealing with controversial and sometimes difficult issues. We have made a good start.

There has been much discussion and debate about the bill and the wider issues in relation to trans people. The tone of debate on social media especially has not been helpful. As I said in my statement, I think that we can try to reset some of the debate and its tone.

As I also said, I will listen to everyone’s views, and my door is open to members from across the chamber. I referred to meetings that I had with stakeholders, who have very differing views on the bill. The meetings with those who were most vehemently against the proposals were very courteous, and I thank those people for that.

The bill should not be portrayed as making people take sides or pitting people against one other. That is something that we, as parliamentarians, need to guard against. I therefore ask again that we in Parliament lead by example, as we are doing today, and work together, set a tone of respectful discussion and focus on the specific proposals that are actually in the bill.

People are able to change their gender under the current 2004 act. Interestingly, the existing gender recognition legislation talks about gender and sex. The bill makes no changes—none at all—to legal requirements, policy on data collection, record keeping or the criminal justice system. All public bodies must ensure that their policies and practices are in line with the Equality Act 2010, which sets out protections for the protected characteristics, including sex and gender reassignment, and exceptions for protection of single-sex services, among other things. The bill will not change any of that.

On prisons—this is an important point to make, because the issue has been raised with me and with others—obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not automatically provide access to specific accommodation.

The Scottish Prison Service already makes decisions about accommodating trans prisoners in a way that seeks to protect the wellbeing and rights of the individual as well as the welfare and rights of others. If the service’s risk assessment is that a person should not be placed in the women’s estate because they pose a risk, they will not be placed there. Similarly, if the service assesses that a person could be at risk themselves, they will not be placed where they could be at risk. That already happens. The Scottish Prison Service is reviewing its policy on transgender prisoners to ensure that it continues to get that right. That is what our public services should be doing.

The equality impact assessment has been an important part of the process, and a full equality impact assessment has been done.

I accept that there are some women’s groups, and some women, who oppose the policy, but there are also many women and women’s groups who support it—not least, women’s groups that provide support to some of our most vulnerable women. It is interesting to look at the BBC poll, which really does not reflect that argument. Support for reform of the gender recognition process was highest among young people and among women, and women were far more sympathetic than men to the need for a reformed process.

It is important that we recognise that women have a range of views on the policy, but it is not accurate to say that most women oppose it; the facts suggest otherwise. What is important, however, is that we take seriously the concerns that Pam Gosal and others have raised, that we do not ignore them or dismiss them and that we address them.

However, we have to point out that many of the issues are not related to what the bill is about, but represent a more general concern. Some of that might be about the feeling that we are not making the progress on women’s equality that we need to make. As a woman who has been campaigning for women’s equality for decades, as a feminist and as the mum of a daughter, I get frustrated about that. However, that is not the fault of the trans community. We have work to do to ensure that we can progress women’s equality. Let us keep talking about it, and let us try to reassure people where we can.