Chamber and committees

Naomi Cunningham, can you touch on women of faith and on religion? You probably know that the committee has discussed that. How do we ensure that those women do not feel excluded, for example in a swimming pool changing room? Are we going backwards? Please stop me if I am not allowed to say this, but we heard in a private session that people may not want to go into changing rooms and may decide just to shop online in case someone else is there. How do we ensure that everyone is included and not excluded? Can you say a little about that?

We heard privately from one such organisation. I was thinking about the religious side of things—not just services but what happens when people use places and come outside. How do we make sure that everyone is included?

You have said that more work needs to be done. Is that in line with the bill being introduced?

Basically, more work has to be done. With the bill having been introduced, has that been identified? I have mentioned that there could be more people coming forward, so we have to ensure the readiness of our systems and databases for that.

You are absolutely right that it is already the case that transgender doctors do not have to inform the patient of their transgender status. As there is already a gap in the law, would it not make sense to address that issue now and bring balance between transgender rights and religious liberties? The bill is an opportunity—perhaps the prime opportunity—to bridge that gap at a time when proposed changes to the GRA would make it easier to transition and obtain a GRC. That may mean that the problem will become more widespread and have a greater impact on the faith communities and their right to practise their religions.

Can I put the same question to Anthony Horan and Karen Hendry about the gap that is in the law right now and about the new legislation?

Is the Prison Service ready to provide that support if the increase happens?

Good afternoon, and thank you for your opening statements. As you will probably be aware, if someone wishes to choose the sex of their nurse or doctor, they are free to do so. For example, if a female goes to a doctor’s surgery to have a smear test done, she has the right to ask to have it done by a female doctor. If a doctor or nurse is transgender and a patient is not aware of that—as we have heard from many witnesses, there is no requirement for that information to be disclosed to the patient—that could interfere with their religious practices, whereby women are not allowed to be touched by men. That is of great importance to many people, especially members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community.

I raised that concern last week. I must put this on the record and make it clear to everybody who is listening: at no time am I saying that the rights of trans people do not matter, or that religious rights do not matter. This is about creating a practical balance between two sensitive areas—rights and liberties. I am raising concerns that have been highlighted to me by many people.

I understand that the practice to which I am referring may not be the practice of every religion and may not be the practice of the religions that you represent. However, it would be great to hear from you, as representatives of your religious organisations, on whether the issue that I have raised is a concern for you or for women of faith, and on whether there are other concerns regarding the practical implications of self-ID that the committee might not have heard about before.

Good morning, panel, and thank you for your opening statements.

A freedom of information request has revealed that, as of 3 December 2021, 11 trans women were being held in the Scottish Prison Service and more than half were housed in the female estate. Why are the others not being housed in the female estate? Do they not have a GRC?

You said that one of the things that you take into consideration is declaration of a GRC. We know that the Scottish Prison Service’s gender identity and gender reassignment policy is currently under review and might well be revised to give priority status, as it were, to GRC holders. Those opposed to the bill believe that the removal of the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria will make it significantly easier for prisoners to obtain a GRC, which means that the number of those who have a GRC and are therefore entitled to be held in the women’s estate will likely rise.

Let me be clear: this is about creating a balance between transgender-related rights and the safety and wellbeing of the female prison population and their protection from bad-faith actors. This is about being fair to all. Do you think that a fair way of reassuring female prisoners would be for the bill to be amended to ensure that the GRC is not effective in prison allocations?