Chamber and committees

I want to ask about how the legislation has developed since it has come into force, particularly in Victoria, where it has been in force for nearly five years. Some people are concerned that, if the legislation is introduced in Scotland, there will be an inevitable, as they would say, slippery slope to expansion. On the other hand, when we pass legislation in a new area, we would expect that legislation to be reviewed and finessed.

Perhaps you can tell us about how the law has developed in Victoria in particular, and elsewhere in Australia. Have there been changes to the eligibility criteria? Have the criteria expanded or contracted? Have the safeguards that were included in the legislation in Victoria when it was first brought in been made more robust or relaxed? Finally, how have the numbers changed over time? Has there been a massive increase, or have the numbers stabilised?

Young people have said to a number of members that they have been told by the Chalmers clinic that there has been a pause on gender-affirming treatments. Is that not true, or is it something that you would want to go away and have a look at?

Anything that can be done to get some transparency on the matter would be very helpful, because a number of people are really concerned about it. However, what you have said has been helpful for now.

It would be useful if Professor Ellis or Professor Strath could give us an indication of the timescales for the trial, because people are keen to hear how that is progressing.

I was not here when Dr Cass gave her evidence, so I did not hear it directly. There has been a fair degree of controversy around the methodology of the Cass review—not least and most recently from the British Medical Association. What is your position on the methodology that was employed by the Cass review? Will you comment on the work of the BMA review and how the Government will respond to that review once it is published?

Gillian Mackay mentioned that she had spoken to young trans people, and that that was where some of her questions were coming from.

The Cass review was about children—that was the work that was done. There is, however, a concern from some young trans people that its reach goes further than just children, and that there have been policy decisions that affect those in the 17 to 24 age group. Have there been such policy decisions? It has been suggested that the Chalmers clinic has paused gender-affirming treatments for that age group. What is the decision-making process around that? Is there a policy change, and what can those young people expect for the future?

I have two quick questions. First, does COSLA think that the bill will be improved by the stage 2 amendments, or will the amendments make it worse? Would you prefer the bill without the stage 2 amendments, which have not yet been passed? Secondly, have you done any work on amendments of your own that you might ask MSPs to lodge during the stage 2 process? We are in an unusual situation of having a pre-stage 2, which means that the amendments have been lodged, but have not been voted on yet.

My questions are on the national care service charter, to give you an opportunity to say something about that. What are your thoughts on the co-design process and whether the charter will be effective? I am keen to hear, too, whether you think that it might be good for the charter to ultimately be a living document that could develop as we get experience of the national care service. Finally, do you have any thoughts on what a complaints process for the proposed NCS might look like?

Simon Macfarlane and Keir Greenaway suggested that one of the reasons for their opposition to the bill was what they described as a power grab from and a loss of local accountability to local government. Simon mentioned the Verity house agreement a couple of times. I note for the record that I was the minister who was responsible, along with the then Deputy First Minister, for taking forward that agreement.

One of the key aspects of the Verity house agreement is that the Government should not interfere in pay negotiations, which are devolved. How do we address the matter given that, on the one hand, you are saying that we should respect the agreement and that there should be local accountability, but, on the other hand, every time that there is a pay dispute, both unions come forward and say that the Government should get involved, which goes against what the agreement says?

I would also like a quick comment on the fact that, as MSPs, we frequently hear constituents complain about what they call a postcode lottery—that is, that care services are different depending on where you live. How do we balance that call by people who use the services across Scotland with your call for local accountability? Either Simon or Keir can respond.

You are then asking for a national board with more powers. If power goes there, it must come from somewhere else—if it is shared—but you want it to be meaningful.