Chamber and committees

I have one more question. Are there any international comparisons, whether from Europe or outside Europe, that you have made with regard to religious rights? Obviously we have to ensure that we do not take anyone’s rights away, whether they be trans or religious rights, and that we work in a balanced way. Have you experienced or seen anything out there that you can speak about with regard to balancing both sets of rights, whether it be to single-sex spaces or single-sex services?

Good morning to the panel. Thank you for your opening statements and the information that you have provided. On the back of what my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy has been talking about, what are your thoughts on the system being open to abuse by bad-faith actors who wish to gain access to single-sex spaces; and what are your thoughts on specific concerns for women of faith?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for your opening remarks and for the information that you have provided. In particular, Karon Monaghan was very knowledgeable in breaking down where a GRC applies and does not apply and the relationship between gender and sex.

My question follows Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point. We have heard, from people who are opposed to the bill, many concerns about self-exclusion from single-sex services. The witnesses have talked a bit about female representation on public boards and in sport, and you have heard the arguments about fairness in sport and a level playing field. Karon Monaghan and Naomi Cunningham also touched on the impact on minority groups and women of faith. May we hear a little more detail on those issues? What is the solution, especially when it comes to sport and women of faith? We must be mindful of not excluding anyone; we must ensure that no one out there feels excluded by the bill’s provisions.

Convener, may we also hear from Sharon Cowan?

We heard a lot from Naomi Cunningham and Karon Monaghan and I want to know whether Sharon Cowan thinks that there is a solution to the issue. Is there a happy medium that means that we do not exclude anyone? Can we ensure that everyone is included?

Good morning, David, and thank you for your opening statement. The Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland submitted written evidence in which it talked about

“current IT systems which do not accommodate for transgender and non-binary patients in relation to referrals and screening. For example, a trans male cannot be referred for a cervical smear or to a gynaecology clinic if they are recorded as male in the practice database, despite still having female reproductive organs.”

With an anticipated inflation in the number of GRC applications, do you have any concerns about decoupling of the legal and medical aspects of gender reassignment?

Will you also say a little about minority groups?

Thank you. It is very important that we hear from those organisations to ensure that the bill includes and represents everyone in Scotland.

The Cass review on gender identity services in England and Wales is on-going, but its interim report says:

“There has not been routine and consistent data collection ... which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.”

Given that it is the state’s duty to protect and safeguard children’s wellbeing, should a similar inquiry be conducted in Scotland, followed by more detailed data collection, to ensure that the bill will not have any unintended consequences?

Do you think that the numbers will increase with more GRCs coming through?