Chamber and committees

There has been a full discussion on this grouping. On Daniel Johnson’s amendment 25, we must address the policy impact of reforming the law. Most members speaking today have said that, while the reform of the legislation is well intentioned, the bill is clumsy. All of us have said that we need clear, robust guidance from the Scottish Government on the interaction with the 2010 act.

My colleague Pam Gosal was correct to point out that the Scottish Government has brushed off concerns from stakeholders. Pauline McNeill was right to say that public organisations should not be left in the dark. Legislation should be clear. We believe—and I hope that the cabinet secretary is hearing what we are saying on behalf of stakeholders, our constituents and others among the general public—that the proposed new law is not workable and is not clear enough. It is important that the public are reassured that the bill will not harm the rights of women and others, particularly in protection against discrimination—including in pay or in representation on public boards—or in the protection of single-sex spaces, for example in domestic shelters and rape crisis centres. I agree with Foysol Choudhury and Pauline McNeill that it is down to the Scottish Government to tell us what the effect of a GRC is for the purposes of the 2010 act.

Pam Duncan-Glancy says that she wants the Scottish Government to make good law and produce clear guidance. We are all agreed on that: we must give the public clarity. However, I would question what clarity her amendment 37 gives. As the bill stands, the Scottish Government is failing to put a firewall between GRCs and the 2010 act, but at the same time it is making GRCs available to a much larger, wider, more diverse group of people.

Despite the Scottish Government supporting Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 37, we still do not have the reassurance that there is clarity for the delivery of services, jobs and sport on the ground. All that the amendment does is support the SNP position, which has still not been explained.

I would like some clarity on the relevance of a GRC under the Equality Act 2010. Does the cabinet secretary believe that a GRC is relevant or irrelevant under that act? Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government argued in court that a GRC changes someone’s sex under the 2010 act. Can she explain that?

I just want to say one more thing, if I may, convener.

I thank Daniel Johnson for his intervention. I did not use those words, but he is entitled to his opinion. I am not going to interfere in how his party decides on business management.

Using the example that the cabinet secretary used of the EHRC guidance, what it suits is shallow. The EHRC supports Foysol Choudhury’s amendment 104, as do I, so why does the Scottish Government not support it? If the Scottish Government truly wants reform, and if the cabinet secretary wants the bill to be passed as a piece of legislation that provides for groundbreaking reform in Scotland, all the political parties should be brought together. We have discussed the bill in good faith and we want to make good law. That is the point. The catch-all approach that the cabinet secretary has been supportive of in previous groupings of amendments would have been preferable for this grouping.

On that point, I seek to withdraw amendment 23.

Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Amendment 25 moved—[Daniel Johnson].

Amendment 21 is a probing amendment that makes it clear that a gender recognition certificate does not change the status of a person as a parent under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Currently, there is no provision regarding the status of parenthood in the bill. Section 12 of the 2004 act states:

“The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender ... does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.”

If GRCs that are issued under the new Scottish system change the definitions in relation to mother and father, that could create confusion on their child’s official documents, and it would have cross-border implications.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will tell me that amendment 21 is not necessary and that section 12 of the 2004 act will still apply to GRCs that are issued by the registrar general for Scotland. In that case, I will seek to withdraw it.

I move amendment 21.

I seek to withdraw amendment 21. All I will say about the amendments in this group is that I am sympathetic to Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 111 on the impact on prisons. It is possible that addressing our concerns through the amendment would have reduced the risk in prisons. The cabinet secretary has indicated that this is dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service, but we still have concerns about the number of individuals seeking to acquire a GRC—a number that will possibly increase tenfold. I am sympathetic to Mr MacGregor’s comment that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment might address this, but we will have to see how the cabinet secretary responds to that. If that is not the case, we could possibly have a discussion and work together to seek to address the concerns that Fulton MacGregor and I both have.

Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 14—Offences

Amendments 22 and 99 not moved.

Amendments 72 and 73 moved—[Shona Robison ]—and agreed to.

Cabinet secretary, I am still concerned that you have not reassured my colleague Pam Gosal on the impact of her amendment. I will reiterate what Daniel Johnson has said: moving to a self-declaration model for obtaining a GRC will make the protection of privacy under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 more easily available. As a result, that section 22 privacy provision will not guarantee that a female doctor or nurse will treat a person of religious diversity. I understand the protections that are afforded under that provision, but I am not reassured, and I implore the cabinet secretary to come back to Pam Gosal and work with her on the issue. Foysol Choudhury has also raised concerns. If I may say so, there is room to continue the conversation on the matter.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her intervention. With all due respect, I note that I am on the side of the public and I am not making this political. It is important that we discuss things robustly, and it is a shame that other parties did not reach the position of having a free vote on the bill so that we could be more open and transparent.

It is just a comment. Cabinet secretary, you are putting the onus on people in the NHS, for example, to interpret the law.

During the progress of the bill, there has been much discussion about the relationship between GRCs and healthcare. It is unrealistic to assume that some—perhaps many—of those who receive a GRC will not see that as relevant to what they are entitled to from NHS Scotland. I very much welcome Sarah Boyack’s comments and amendments, but my amendment 140 is slightly different, because, currently, no provision in the bill recognises that likelihood or the potential impact on healthcare for trans people. Amendment 140 seeks to do that. Specifically, we call on the Scottish ministers to conduct a review into whether a bespoke healthcare pathway needs to be created for those who apply for a GRC; whether any healthcare issues have arisen in the experience of people who have applied for a GRC; and what further steps could be taken to improve healthcare for trans people.

Amendment 140 could help to address the important issues that Sarah Boyack talked about, such as the long waiting times, which, should the process of obtaining a GRC become easier and be expanded to include a larger segment of the population, can reasonably be expected to increase. Sadly, that is a part of the reform of the legislation that the Scottish National Party has turned a blind eye to.

I accept that there might be other ways of recognising that point. I am open to any proposals from the cabinet secretary for approaching it differently. However, we should not legislate then walk away without making some provision for the potential impact in demands for health services that are already creaking at the seams.

We believe that the publication of the Cass review will offer important insights on improving healthcare for younger trans people, which is why we originally called for the bill to be delayed. We know that it is naive to assume that there will be no spillover effects in demands for healthcare from a greater increase in the number of GRCs. Although the SNP cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, I urge the cabinet secretary to support or at least consider my amendment.