³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said. I understand the various bits of regulation that might come to the committee, and I am under no illusions about the level of work that that could involve. However, in a bill such as this, something like that probably needs to have the level of scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure, as opposed to the negative procedure, which, in my short time in the Parliament, I have learned does not provide as much opportunity for scrutiny. I do not think that some of those aspects should be left to the negative procedure, so I do, I am afraid, press the amendment.

Throughout the process, Scottish Labour has sought to focus on the bill and its drafting and to reject the culture wars that have dominated some of the discussion. Casting trans people as threats or women as bigots is not helpful. What we need is good law and clear guidance, and that is what my party and I are working to achieve.

Although many concerns relate to issues that are not in the bill, we understand that some people, including women, are frightened that they will lose some of their rights, particularly in relation to single-sex services, and we know that they have fought hard for those rights.

Colleagues will know that the Equality Act 2010, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, provides protection from discrimination for women and trans people. It is our view that nothing in the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill will or should affect that. In the case of gender reassignment, it is clear that the protection from discrimination exists whether or not a GRC is in place and whether or not the person has undergone medical treatment for transition. The protections in the 2010 act also allow single-sex services, such as women’s refuges, to exclude men and trans people in certain circumstances. It is Scottish Labour’s view that the 2010 act is reserved and cannot be altered by devolved legislation, so it is our understanding that those protections will and must still apply if the bill is passed. That is a matter of great importance for many people who are concerned about the current reforms, and we recognise the desire for reassurance. That is why I lodged amendment 37.

That protection, which allows for the operation of single-sex spaces, works as an exemption to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or gender reassignation, but only when that is a proportionate response to meeting a legitimate aim. For example, in the case of a women’s single-sex service, a trans woman without a GRC could be excluded on the ground that they are legally a man. A trans woman with a GRC, who is therefore legally a woman, could also be excluded, but on the ground that they have reassigned their gender and sex on their birth certificate.

Both of those exemptions, for the protection and dignity of women who are accessing services, must be protected. That is why we support reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the continued implementation of the protections and provisions in the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it should be clear in the bill that nothing in it modifies the protections in the 2010 act. In proposing amendment 37, I seek to ensure that, should the bill pass, it is clear that Parliament believes that the GRA must be considered alongside the 2010 act.

It is also my belief that it is crucial that the Equality Act 2010 is read in as a whole, because it is the interaction of all the schedules in that act that brings its strength. Including only the aspects of the 2010 act that relate to sex could, at a later date, mean that it could be assumed that we did not give importance to, for example, gender reassignment. That would be a concern in relation to a number of issues, but that element specifically could be key with regard to applying some of the previous exemptions that I spoke about in relation to protecting single-sex services.

That is why I believe that my amendment, which focuses on the 2010 act in its entirety, affords the best and strongest protection for trans people and women and all of us. It covers the protections in sections 11 and 195 of the 2010 act, as other amendments in the group seek to do, and I believe that it will carry the confidence of the public.

On that basis, I will abstain on several amendments in the group that pick out specific sections of the 2010 act and on Jeremy Balfour’s amendment on the European convention on human rights, which was discussed previously. My amendment seeks to cover all of those without separating them from the other aspects of the 2010 act, which I believe is what brings its strengths.

I will support amendments that seek guidance on how the two acts would work together. That will be essential if the public are to have confidence in the law and in order that organisations are clear about what they can and cannot do, which my colleagues have spoken about already. Amendment 37 would ensure that, in any future dispute over Parliament’s intention in passing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, it will be clear that each and every protection and provision of the Equality Act 2010 will and must continue to have effect, despite the passage of the bill.

Forgive me for intervening, cabinet secretary—and convener; I do understand the time constraints—but, on that point, I do not understand why it is not possible to gather certain information. Do you mean that you do not gather it yet? In that case, can you confirm that you would be open to gathering additional or new information?

Amendment 147 would require the Government to collect better data on gender recognition certificates and in relation to the legislation. It takes the best practice that I have been able to find from the Irish, Maltese and Victorian legislation and from the Ministry of Justice in relation to UK models, and it will ensure that future policy will be served by better evidence than will be found through the current drafting of the bill. On that basis, I encourage members to vote for amendment 147.

I move amendment 147.

Thank you for that answer. I take the point about the need for a system that is proportionate. No one wants to publish information about individuals, given that we are talking about small numbers. I appreciate that that is a concern.

However, when we talk about the impact of the bill, particularly in relation to how it interacts with the Equality Act 2010, it is important that we can understand that. There are concerns about the interaction with the Equality Act 2010. If we do not assess the impact, people with concerns will never know whether their concerns have come to pass, and people who think that there is no need for concern will never know whether they were right not to have concerns. It is important that we do all that we can to collect information on that so that the public can have confidence in what the bill is trying to do.

I will support many amendments in this group because review on impact is key. Like my colleague Jamie Greene, I may not always share some of the concerns, but it is incredibly important that we properly scrutinise the impact of the legislation.

I will support the amendment to section 2 in Claire Baker’s name because it is rightly more comprehensive than amendment 76. I will abstain on amendments 148 and 143, because I had asked the member to consider that the timescales are quite short after royal assent, and I will vote against amendment 155, because it would delay the act, and trans people have waited a long time for this. Otherwise, I support the amendments in the group.

Amendment 145 aims to ensure that Parliament considers how the process outlined in the bill is working, including in terms of the role of the registrar general and section 22. It also requires ministers to consider whether there should be provisions for non-binary people, as we know that not including them has been a concern for many.

Amendment 146 in my name ensures that we consider properly the impact—unintended or otherwise—of the act. Scottish Labour knows that people have concerns, including on how the act interacts with protections in the Equality Act 2010, the disclosure of protection information and other areas. Some have also raised concerns about the impact on gender identity healthcare, as we have heard, so the amendment requires the Government to look at all of that.

Lastly and importantly, some people are concerned that legal challenges will be brought in relation to the bill and the Equality Act 2010. The amendment seeks to monitor that as well. In short, the amendment is designed to scrutinise many areas of concern in the bill so that, should they come to pass, Parliament can address them.

Thank you for that, Sheena. It echoes some of what Rachel Cackett said and paints a pretty grim picture of what is going on.

I want to ask Frank McKillop and Andrew Ewen about the experience of their members from a service user point of view as opposed to a provider point of view. Can you both say something about that and about what we need to do now rather than in the longer term?

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. I am pleased that you have referred to the fact that we cannot wait but need to take some measures now, and I am not at all surprised to hear that disabled people and their organisations are urging change as soon as possible. I remember being involved in asking the Scottish Government to address social care 15 years ago. To say that there has been incremental change since then is probably an understatement.

There are a number of problems right now. Disabled people are getting so few hours of care and support that they are having to choose between using those hours to go shopping, to pay their bills—with someone there to help them—or to have a shower. That is the reality that disabled people are facing right now. As regards carers who are working in the sector and living on poverty pay, the minister has mentioned that there have been two pay increases, but that has not been enough, and carers are leaving the sector to work in supermarkets instead, because the pay is better there. That is leaving people without the care and support that they need.

Which parts of the problems that I have just outlined is the minister going to address now, instead of waiting until the national care service is developed?

The problems that have been outlined about postcode lotteries, and the need for a national approach to what people can expect, are not new, and I share the characterisation of those concerns. However, I do not share the Government’s characterisation of the situation as one in which it does not have any accountability or responsibility for that. People who receive services for social care, or people who work in social care, should not be expected to have to go to multiple doors and multiple agencies to get answers. I am afraid that, actually, the buck stops with the minister. I therefore hope that there will be a mechanism in the here and now, as well as in the future, for people to hold the system to account.

The other point that I want to make—after which I will get to my question—is that, although I am pleased that the issue of sectoral bargaining has been raised, there is nothing whatsoever in the bill about it. That is giving serious concerns to various people across the sector, such as trade unions and third sector organisations. It would therefore be good to hear that the bill will include a commitment to collective bargaining.

I have one final question, convener—you will not need to come back to me if I ask it now.

I am pleased to hear that sectoral bargaining is on the agenda, and I press the minister to give an absolute commitment to it, because I know that a number of people are seriously concerned that, as a result of this process, we will go backward rather than forward on fair work. A firm commitment on that would therefore be helpful.

It could be one person’s view that a framework bill is flexible and another person’s view that, because there is no detail, people cannot have confidence in what it will deliver. In that regard, I am interested in human rights. Two specific rights are in the bill, but neither of them relates to article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I heard what the minister said about the forthcoming human rights bill, but we cannot have a situation in Scotland in which we have one overarching human rights bill that governs everything and all of the services. We also have to look at how we implement human rights through different parts of Government, including in the national care service. Will the minister therefore commit to putting the right to independent living in the bill? How will human rights be delivered for the people who use the national care service and those who work in it?