���˿���

Our next item of business is an evidence session with the Just Transition Commission, the purpose of which is to provide members with an introduction to its work. Professor Jim Skea, its chair, is joined by Elliot Ross, who is the head of the commission secretariat. Welcome.

As always, I ask members and witnesses to keep answers and questions as concise as possible. I invite Professor Skea to make an opening statement.

Good morning and welcome to the 27th meeting in 2022 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. There are no apologies from members, although Colin Beattie, the deputy convener, will be joining us at about 10 o’clock.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take item 3 in private. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, Professor Skea. You have raised a number of issues about which I am sure that members will want to ask questions.

You mentioned sectoral plans. It is anticipated that the first plan, which is on energy, is due towards the end of this year, I think. You also spoke about commission members, strategies and all those kinds of things. Is enough action and activity taking place, or are we still very much at the planning stage? We must reach the targets by 2045. Is there enough focus on actions? Is the balance right between actions and strategies?

You also mentioned measuring progress. How do we do that? We have a target of 2045, but how do we chart and measure progress towards that? When will things start? We will have the sectoral plans, on which there will be consultation, in 2023, so we are probably looking towards 2025 before activity starts, which means a 20-year timescale. Will there be targets to meet during that time? How will progress be measured during that period?

I very much thank Professor Skea and Elliot Ross for giving us evidence, which has been very helpful, and I look forward to continuing our working relationship with the commission.

If an employer dealing with patients decided to use an exception to make a service a single-sex service, would it be helpful for them to set out the basis on which they had made that decision? Should there be more transparency around that? I think that people’s understanding of single-sex services is based on biological sex; indeed, most people will think that, if they are told that something is a single-sex service. Under the 2010 act, sex and gender reassignment would be the exceptions that you would apply.

I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can provide clarity on an issue that is linked to the previous discussion. The right to make decisions on exceptions sits with the employer, not with the patient. The patient has the right to ask about who can provide care, but the right to make any decisions under the Equality Act 2010 sits with the employer. I note that the cabinet secretary has said that the employer makes the decision, but can she set out the legal framework upon which they do so?

Both of my amendments—156 in this group and 151 in the next group—focus on the operation of occupational exceptions and the impact of the bill on practice and decision making.

Amendment 156 in this group seeks to ensure that there is clarity over the interaction with section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which makes the disclosure of protected information related to an individual’s trans status a criminal offence, unless it is to prevent a crime. It is about how that interacts with schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which allows occupational exceptions based on both gender reassignment and sex when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That supports the provision of same-sex services where it is proportionate and legitimate. That is what the current law facilitates, but the current lack of clarity is leading to confusion over how the law is interpreted. That confusion exists both for providers of such facilities, and for users, who are unclear about what they can or cannot expect, or what they are entitled to ask for under existing equality legislation.

The bill is significantly changing the process by which someone gains a GRC, making it more accessible and less intrusive for individuals. I support reform of the process, but I also believe that we must fully consider its implications. It is expected to increase the number of people who hold a GRC and, by simplifying the process and introducing a process of self-identification, it has the potential to broaden the cohort of people who hold a GRC. At the heart of my amendment is the importance of information sharing where a proportionate and legitimate right to deliver a same-sex service is being exercised.

In the 2019 consultation on the draft bill, the Scottish Government highlighted a situation that requires clarity. The consultation said:

“some people in an organisation (eg people in its HR department) may know about a person’s trans history but those actually taking the decisions on staff deployment (eg line managers) may not.”

The consultation went on to say:

“when there is a legitimate case to use the general occupational requirements exception, the Scottish Government considers that it would be appropriate for information about a person’s trans history to be shared in a strictly limited, proportionate and legitimate way.”

However, it is not clear how that broad statement can be made in relation to section 22 of the 2004 act, which makes it a criminal offence to share protected information. That has led to confusion among employers and in public bodies. For example, a Scottish health board, in response to a freedom of information request, said:

“Unless the practitioner consented, to exclude them from carrying out female-only care would be a breach of section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and a criminal offence. There are also restrictions under the Equality Act 2010 around requiring staff to disclose their gender identity and staff selection on this basis.”

I am not sure where to start on the inaccuracies in that statement. A health board can exclude on the basis of gender assignment, regardless of whether someone holds a GRC. It can exclude someone from delivering female-only care under the Equality Act 2010. The tension is with the lack of clarity on the effect of section 22 of the 2004 act, which is having a chilling effect. That suggests that public bodies believe that section 22 prohibits information to the extent that it prevents them from delivering female-only care. However, the Government consultation from 2019 says that that information can be shared.

The amendment seeks a requirement on Government to review the operation of those interlinked acts in light of the bill that is before us.

I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments in the group. On amendment 151, I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying about it being for the EHRC to issue guidance in this area, but public bodies, including Education Scotland, have provided guidance in addition to EHRC guidance around the Equality Act 2010 on discrimination. Education Scotland describes its guidance as a

“reference which should be used both to develop and review policy.”

It is a tool. The Government could look at whether that is the approach that it should take to providing more guidance in this area. In a briefing that it sent to members, the EHRC said that it had written to the Scottish Government and the UK Government

“to get clarity for employers and service providers on the law.”

The EHRC provides guidance on occupational exemptions, but it has written to the Scottish and UK Governments because it sees a role for Government in providing clarity for employers and service providers.

Cabinet secretary, have you seen the letter and had a chance to respond? I would be interested to know what the difference is with the guidance that Education Scotland has issued on the Equality Act 2010, which comes from 2021 and is described as

“technical guidance”

that provides

“an authoritative, comprehensive and technical guide to the detail of the law.”

I will press the amendment. The cabinet secretary might feel that it oversteps in relation to the role of the Scottish Government, but does she recognise that there is a role for the Scottish Government to provide guidance on the operation of the 2010 act in Scotland? Perhaps we could have further discussion before stage 3 in order to reach a shared understanding of what role the Scottish Government has in ensuring that public bodies and employers in Scotland know how to use the law effectively.

I had not indicated that I wanted to speak. I think that there has been some confusion.