³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes.

I cannot speak for all governing bodies, but I am aware of some very public positions that a number of sports governing bodies have changed after looking at their sport and all the issues that Brian Whittle has raised. They have changed their policy in relation to transgender athletes on the back of that. It is right and proper for each sport to look at its rules, because each sport is very different with regard to unfairness and competition among athletes. The issue is not the same for every sport, and I just cannot see how we could legislate across the board when every sport is so different.

It is much better to allow sports governing bodies to do this, as they are doing; indeed, I am sure that members around the table will be aware of some very high-profile policy changes in that respect. Many sports bodies are doing that sort of thing already, and it is for them to lead what is appropriate for their sport, within the law and making sure that they are in line with the 2010 act. It is entirely for them to do that within the existing rules. I just do not see how we could legislate for a pan-sport position.

The Equality Act 2010 protects the characteristics of sex and gender reassignment—it protects all those characteristics. It is a rather good piece of legislation and is entirely untouched by the bill. I have said that on a number of occasions, but we are now literally putting that on the face of the bill for the avoidance of any doubt.

Hang on.

We would not try to legislate in this bill for something that governing bodies have already demonstrated that they are doing. They might not have all done it in the same timeframe, or to the satisfaction of Brian Whittle, but many of them have done it on the international stage, and we have seen changes in policy emanating from that. Given the nature of sport and the fact that it differs from one governing body to the next, those bodies are best placed to have these discussions and make such changes—which means, in Scotland, following sportscotland’s guidance.

I see that Brian Whittle wants to come back in.

I agree with members that it will be important to review and report on the legislation, and I am content that we have a requirement on that in the bill.

Several amendments have been lodged that relate to the operation and impact of the bill across a number of areas. We need to consider carefully the areas in which it is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered and the most suitable timescales in order to ensure the effectiveness of any review.

I am happy to undertake to review the operation and effect of the bill. I consider that the best approach will be to have a single review that covers a range of suitable areas, some of which are covered by amendments that have already been lodged.

I agree with the timescales in some of the amendments. The timescale should be three years after the new system has been established, to allow for the system to bed in and for data to be collected. Therefore, I will seek to coalesce a number of reporting requirements in some of the amendments that have been lodged into a single provision for post-legislative scrutiny at stage 3. In line with that approach, I can support some of the amendments in the group, with a view to further work being done at stage 3. I do not support other amendments, but I will consider all the issues in developing a proposal for stage 3.

I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 145 in principle, as it would place a duty on ministers to initiate a review of the act within three years of commencement. That is an appropriate timescale for ensuring an effective review. I will use that as the basis and include other items at stage 3.

However, I cannot support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 146, which would impose too broad a requirement in relation to reporting on the bill’s impact on the Equality Act 2010 and healthcare in prisons. As I said at the outset, we need to consider carefully what is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered about and reported on.

On that point, the NHS will, through the patient rights charter, try to accede to someone’s demands and needs. However, in some circumstances—say, with a very small specialty that can be carried out by only a very small number of NHS professionals—that will not always be possible. Pam Gosal herself has recognised that the NHS will try to accede to needs and demands, where possible.

On her other point, the discussion that we had with the Faith & Belief Forum, which comprises various religious leaders from various faiths, was very full, frank and open, and no one had any qualms about giving me their views either in favour of or in opposition to the bill. That was absolutely right and proper.

It would be for the NHS to manage that situation. I do not believe that NHS professionals would want to put themselves in a position in which they were giving medical support to someone who did not want them to give them that support.

The NHS would, and does, manage such situations. We cannot legislate for something like that situation, so it would be for the NHS to manage it, as it currently does. The NHS currently manages difficult situations in which someone may not want a particular person to manage their care for a whole variety of reasons, whether that is right or wrong. People make demands around their own requirements, and the NHS—as you said yourself—will try to accede to those demands where possible, doable and reasonable. It does so day to day, and we should enable it to continue to do that in the way that it currently does.

I do not support amendments 139 and 140. I said last week, and I reiterate, that applying for and receiving a gender recognition certificate and clinical decisions about gender identity healthcare are separate issues. The bill is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. A GRC is not required in order to access gender identity healthcare, and there has never been a requirement for someone to have undergone surgery or any other medical treatment in order to obtain a GRC under the 2004 act.

I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf, has written to the committee setting out all the actions that his officials and the NHS are taking in order to address some of the concerns about gender identity healthcare, not least some of the waiting times, which were mentioned earlier. It is for the health service to resolve those issues, rather than addressing them in a bill that is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

It would always depend on the circumstances of the case, but, for example, if it could be shown that the person had no intention of living in the acquired gender and was obtaining a gender recognition certificate in the full knowledge that they had no intention to do so, that evidence could be gathered and presented to the court.

In the very unlikely circumstance that someone had sought to obtain a gender recognition certificate fraudulently, had no intention of living in the acquired gender, and then went on to commit an offence, the aggravator would show the seriousness of that—not just in relation to making a false declaration, but then in going on to commit a crime having obtained a GRC under false pretences. As I said, the circumstances of each individual case might be very different. That is one example of where that evidence would be shown. The court would then have to consider the circumstances of the case and make a decision on that.

I agree. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 145, which calls for a three-year review, has the right time frame, because it allows for data to be generated. That leads to the question of what we review and what can be reviewed, based on the information that will be available. Would that monitoring in and of itself be kept under review? I agree with Sarah Boyack, but my question is: what will the review criteria be and what information can or will we gather?

On Karen Adam’s question, people will not require a gender recognition certificate to work in healthcare or in any other walk of life. As far as I am aware, that will not be required.

Finally, it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to consider the guidance given to public bodies, including the NHS, and it has done so. The commission has already issued public bodies with guidance on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.

Yes, and they can be applied if it is proportionate to do so. If an employer or service provider—you gave the example of the NHS—wanted to use such an exception under the 2010 act, they could do so as long as it was proportionate. The bill changes none of that—those protections are still there. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated guidance clarifies and reiterates to public service providers that they have that exception but that, if they use it, they must show that it has been proportionate to do so.