Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an important question. Part of the Deputy First Minister’s Covid recovery work is focused on listening to the experiences of those communities that have been most impacted. The DFM has undertaken a number of engagements, listening to those with lived experience to find out what their priorities are to build a Covid recovery strategy. Again, I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on that work, if that would be helpful.

I hope that, when we take forward the bill, we can try to find as many areas of consensus as possible and that it can be done in a respectful environment—in particular, when we discuss the issues in more detail in Parliament.

You might be aware that the first consultation showed that 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of the reform. The second consultation sought views on the draft bill itself, so its approach was qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, it asked whether the minimum age should be reduced to 16, and it included other specific questions on the bill.

Because of the volume of responses—there were 17,000—an in-depth analysis of them was not possible. That is why only the organisational responses were published; it would have taken an inordinate amount of officials’ time to extrapolate all the detail from 17,000 responses. The same approach was taken in the first consultation on the issue and with the equal marriage legislation. It is important to note that there has been an independent analysis of the consultation, which has given a clear summary of views on key aspects of reform such as the minimum age.

Karen Adam has made important points. In the second consultation, we tried to put out information and to reassure people. There is no conflict between the proposed legislation and the rights of women and girls. The Scottish Government has brought forward a huge amount of work on protecting women and girls. That work continues with the misogyny working group. The equally safe strategy, which we might touch on today, is hugely important. Through the work on the bill, we are trying to make the lives of a small number of people that bit easier by changing the process by which someone can obtain a gender recognition certificate.

Karen Adam made the point that some of the debate seems to indicate a desire to move away from the ability to obtain a gender recognition certificate in any way. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we can focus the debate on making the process—which already exists—easier and on removing the difficulties that make the lives of a small number of people very difficult. It is about making the process easier for those who are affected. As we take forward the proposals, we will ensure that they in no way impact on the rights of women and girls.

We have been in discussion with the UK Government on that matter. As the committee is probably aware, the UK Government has said that it is looking to legislate in the area. We have had communications with it to try to get clarity on the scope of that. We have said all along that, if the scope does not go as far as we want it to, we will look to legislate. There are some complexities in relation to devolved and reserved issues, which we would need to work through. However, we have been pretty clear.

I caught the tail end of the earlier evidence session—very powerful testimony and evidence were given. We need to find out from the UK Government what its intentions are in more detail. However, as we have said, it still stands that, if the UK Government either will not legislate or will not go as far as we want to, we will bring forward our own legislation.

We need to reflect on that. I am not in a position to answer at the moment. I would want to come back to the committee to bring more details on those questions, if that is okay.

There have already been two large consultations, which have elicited a huge number of responses, as the member points out. It is not likely that a further consultation will resolve some of the existing polarised views on the bill to which the member alluded. We can best move forward by having open communication, by challenging misconceptions and inaccurate representations and by showing leadership in the Parliament. As I said, there is no conflict between the rights of a small number of trans men and women and the rights of girls and women.

Threats to women and girls come from abusive men, which is an issue that is very close to my heart, as a lifelong feminist. In my experience, those men have never found the need to pretend to be a trans woman in order to abuse women and girls. We have to tackle men’s violence in society and to stay focused on where the real threat to women and girls comes from.

That said, as we take forward the bill, we will ensure that we listen to genuine concerns. There are already protections for single-sex spaces and for services that need a level of discretion, and it is important to maintain those protections. That has already been laid out.

As we move forward, even though there are divergent views, I hope that, as MSPs, we can try to take some of the heat out of the debate, dial down some of the rhetoric and consider the issues in a calm and measured way. At the end of the day, we are talking about a small number of very vulnerable people whose lives can be made that much better by the bill.

Fulton MacGregor made the point that social media is not necessarily representative of society on a range of issues. I think that we all know that.

I intend to build as much consensus as possible in Parliament. There was consensus on the issue across most of the manifestos and recognition that it must be resolved. We must build consensus and tackle the issues that have been raised. If there are suggestions about how the proposed bill can be improved, we will try to reassure people as much as possible.

A process for gender recognition certification already exists; the legislation will make it that bit easier. Some who are involved in the debate want to get rid of gender recognition certification entirely. I hope that that is not where Parliament is—I do not believe that is where it is; I do not think that any party in the Scottish Parliament wants that. Therefore, we are discussing what the process for gender recognition certification should be.

The proposition is to make the certification process easier for the small number of people whose lives are affected, and ensure that we safeguard the rights of women and girls as we do so. I have already referred to the exemptions for single-sex services and to the penalties that will exist for any misuse of the gender recognition certification system.

There are safeguards. We can discuss them in more detail and I am happy to work with the committee to do that in a respectful atmosphere.

That should be of concern to us all, and I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy to write to me with the details. It is the responsibility of us all, including organisations such as registered social landlords and local authorities, which have a huge role to play in supporting people in communities through their policies where there is an issue. For example, antisocial behaviour that has a racist element might breach tenancy agreements and should be taken incredibly seriously—as I think that it is—by social landlords. There is hate crime legislation in place and there are aggravated offences, so the police should be taking those issues seriously, as I am sure that they are.

I am happy to raise the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, to ensure that we consider it as we recover from the pandemic. It is perhaps a legacy issue, but it might be that issues have arisen from people being at home. People are spending more time in their homes and if they are feeling unsafe there, that is a very concerning situation.

I will certainly pick up the issue with Keith Brown and we will respond to Pam Duncan-Glancy if she writes to me with some more detail.

That is very important. It is relevant to highlight our commitment to starting work on a social isolation and loneliness plan, which is backed by £10 million over five years. Such isolation has been a real challenge, and it has been exacerbated by Covid. We have also recently allocated £1 million to organisations tackling social isolation and loneliness, and the intergenerational dimension that the member referred to will be an important part of that work.

It is important that we take this forward. I highlight the connecting Scotland programme, which has been working to support those who are still excluded from technology or who do not have the right technology to take advantage of opportunities. The programme’s digital inclusion element has been really important, and the funding has helped 5,000 older and disabled people to get online and tackle isolation and digital exclusion.

I am happy to say a little bit about that, but I might bring in my officials, who are a bit closer to the detail on the data challenges. One issue is that, if we do not have data, it is difficult to benchmark and to know what progress is being made and what progress is still to be made. We have strengths and weaknesses in our data collection.

I am trying to think which official it would be best to bring in. It might be Jess Dolan.