���˿���

The point that Clare Gallagher made about the importance of plain English was a valid one.

Thank you. That point about going back to people to show that their information was valuable is very important. That will make them feel willing to open up again. I welcome your recognition that a lot of change is needed. I saw what happened with vaccination in gurdwaras and mosques. It was brilliant how we rolled out that process, and we should certainly learn from that.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming along.

I want to follow on from what Clare Gallagher said about marginalised groups. I have participated in many round-table discussions with many members of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and have asked them whether the fact that they always feel that they are not included is to do with particular policies or decision making.

You mentioned that you go out and talk to more than 600 groups but, somehow, information is not reaching those people on the ground. I understand what you said about there being a trust element—I absolutely agree. I come from one of those communities. There is a feeling of, “Why you want to use our information? If you use it, will something change?” I am fully aware that members of those communities question whether anything will change.

Should we consider changing our tactics a bit, rather than using the same groups? Should we involve wider community groups and perhaps even think about talking to people in more religious settings, where a lot of belief is? My family comes from a Sikh background. Maybe you could go to the gurdwara to speak to people. You could even have a group there—maybe downstairs, not where the main congregation is—through which you could provide information, or you could hold a workshop. Every religious setting, whether it is a mosque, a gurdwara or a synagogue, will have schools associated with it. Is that something that could be considered as a way of getting more information to those people so that they can be more involved in decision making?

The letter fails to mention why the issue was not identified by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Why is that the case?

I am just looking to find out whether the concerns that were raised at that time by those people and organisations have been addressed in the bill. It is good that the cabinet secretary mentioned age and a few other concerns, but there are many other concerns that people have raised. Have those concerns been addressed in the bill?

Thank you.

I have previously asked how section 22 interferes with freedom of religion—for instance, where it goes against a woman’s religious practices to be touched by a man. I have given the example of a woman who goes into a doctor’s surgery for a smear test. You can ask for a female doctor in the practice—that is quite normal; my mother does that, as do a lot of my relatives and friends. Given that an individual with a GRC does not have to disclose it, there is the possibility that a woman could end up being seen by a biological male.

I have been made aware of that issue. People have concerns about the existing legislation, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 means that the issue might become more widespread. Were you aware of the issue before the bill was introduced? How will you seek to address it? It is important to balance trans rights and religious rights, whether we are talking about single-sex spaces or single-sex services, especially when they are required by people with a religious background.

First, I want to ask a supplementary question on the back of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s questions about single-sex spaces.

Cabinet secretary, you have made it clear that single-sex spaces are not affected by the bill. Do you think that the Government or you in particular could have done something different to help people who oppose the bill to better understand what it does and does not do? Have any lessons been learned? There are a lot of concerns out there—people stop me in the streets in my constituency to talk about their concerns. Have you learned lessons that will be helpful if we are not going to suspend the bill at stage 1 and are instead going to press ahead with the passage of the legislation?

My next question is about the situation in other countries. In previous meetings, a concern was raised about the issue of data collection on the basis of gender as opposed to sex and the potential impact that that could have on issues such as the gender pay gap. I asked Senator Doherty whether Ireland’s introduction of the self-identification policy had resulted in anything that might be concerning. She said that that issue was missed at the time and not brought to light but that she felt that it was something that she had to look at now, because there is a gap there. What are your thoughts about the gender pay gap and data collection?

Lastly, we heard in private from an organisation that said that this change would drive women, especially from ethnic minority groups, more underground, because they would not go into many single-sex spaces such as changing rooms. Do you believe that if those women cannot have that single-sex space to themselves they will be driven more underground? I welcome the fact that you have said that employers will hopefully have in their employment contracts and guidance that, with regard to a trans person, they will be sensitive on religious grounds, if someone, say, wanted to see a doctor.

Could you help me and the people who are watching this session understand this a little bit better? In a previous evidence session, there was a conversation about a situation in which—I have to get the terminology right—a person who is a trans person now but who was born as a male was on a higher salary than their women colleagues. How would you balance that out? Obviously, at a certain time in their life, that person could have been being paid as a male—as we know, there is a big gender pay gap between females and males. If colleagues working with a trans woman are on less pay, how do we work that out?