Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Ian Duddy, in your opening statement, you mentioned that you are setting out a plan and a vision for the future. With that in mind, we all know that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill would have had a significant impact on the Scottish Human Rights Commission, such as through the powers in section 10A. Is the continuing uncertainty around when the amended bill will be reintroduced causing issues for the commission in its long-term planning, and would the commission like more clarity from the Scottish Government on the timescale for the bill’s reintroduction?

Thank you for that information. You have spoken about your budget and your ask for the year ahead. For clarity, is that included in the figure, or is there uncertainty because you are looking for more staff and more money but you are not certain about when the work will come through? That could affect your long-term planning and the budget side.

In your opening statement, you mentioned the big areas that you will focus on. How do you come to a conclusion on which areas you would like to focus on in creating your vision and plan?

Thank you, Ian. You are absolutely right that human rights should be for everybody—I have said that many times in the committee and in the chamber—and that is why you are here today. We are talking about these rights, and, yes, these rights should be there to protect trans people as well as women and girls, and that is why the concern exists: we do not want predators out there pretending and able to obtain a gender recognition certificate to do that.

You have talked about concerns; you have mentioned that. Do you not think that it would be a good idea if the Scottish Government were to postpone the bill to look at the concerns, because they have been highlighted? We cannot just dismiss somebody from the United Nations saying something now; I know that you have said that they said something else previously, but it is very clear that that has been said now, so should we not look at that?

This is to protect trans people as well, so that they do not get blamed later on for something. I have said it very plainly and clearly in the committee that we should have rights for everybody, and we need to make sure of that. Trans people really need those rights, and they have been fighting for them. They should get their rights, but we should also make sure that women and girls are safe from the actual, real bad people, not the trans people.

We support amendments 147 and 149, because both offer the opportunity for more data collection.

With regard to amendment 147, we especially welcome data being collected on the number of gender recognition certificate applications that are received and the number that are rejected. Should a large number of such applications be rejected, it would be important to know why. We also welcome provisions on the number of applications that are received from prison, because assaults on female inmates by males pretending to be transgender have occurred elsewhere in the UK.

Amendment 147 would also allow us to analyse how the change in the law impacts on the overall number of gender recognition certificates that are granted. The Scottish Government has made estimates of the number of applications that will result from the change; the amendment would allow for those estimates to be measured against reality. I therefore hope that the Scottish Government welcomes amendment 147.

Amendment 149 calls for more data collection on trans healthcare. The waiting times in that respect are long, so it is important that we measure the impact of the legislation on them, especially as the bill opens the window to more people being eligible for a gender recognition certificate. The impact of the legislation needs to be measured for every affected group, and the amendment would help to achieve that.

You have said that there are practices in place under which a woman can ask for a female doctor, if they are available, and I must thank the NHS for going out of its way to accommodate the diversity of religions. However, can you clarify something for me, cabinet secretary? If my mum walked into a doctor’s surgery and did not know that the person was a biological man but saw a female—a trans female, obviously; I have to get that right—she would not ask. She just would not know. How do we protect the rights of trans people but balance that with the rights of people from religious backgrounds? How can you ask for something or how can someone provide something if you do not know anything?

I want to be clear that, while I recognise that improvements to the gender recognition process would be beneficial for trans people, the proposed law is a let-down for women, girls, faith communities and children, who require the protection of the law. I believe that such a balance of interests comes from balanced, well-considered legislation. As it stands, the bill does not get that balance right.

My amendments 76, 80 and 81 seek to address concerns that a self-declaration model may exacerbate existing problems with section 22 of the 2004 act. Amendment 76 creates a requirement on Scottish ministers to

“prepare and publish a report on a review of the impact of this Act on patients where knowledge of the biological sex of a health professional carrying out a medical examination or treatment is required, including on religious grounds.”

Women of faith and faith groups have expressed concern that the proposed legislation could interfere with their religious beliefs. The debate has been polarised, however, and some Islamic scholars and organisations told me that they were too afraid to come to the committee. We should all be extremely disappointed: this Parliament is the people’s Parliament, but people did not feel comfortable expressing themselves here. Hence, today I am the voice for all women and girls.

For many religious women, particularly in the Islamic faith, it is religious law that they shall not let a man touch or see their body. Therefore, they feel more comfortable using the services of female general practitioners, carers and other medical professionals. We must ensure that the bill is truly compatible with those women’s religious rights.

It goes further than women of religion; it affects women and girls more broadly. In my region, parents and women have stopped me in the street, explaining how frightened they are for their children. A constituent of mine raised concerns about what the proposals would mean for an elderly woman in a care home—whether she could be guaranteed a female carer to wash and dress her. Those concerns stem from the expected increase in the number of GRC holders and the lack of clarity surrounding section 22 of the 2004 act.

No—I am fine now.

Cabinet secretary, I seek some clarification. As you know, I am a new MSP—which is something that I will probably keep saying over the five years of the session. From legislation comes policy and from policy comes guidance. I do not understand why it is not within your gift today to agree to work with us on this part of the legislation to ensure that it is watertight and that we are supporting every diverse community and not letting anyone down.

Thank you for your response, cabinet secretary, but I want to clarify what you said about emergency situations. If I were, say, knocked down by a car and the doctor who dealt with me at the time was male rather than female, our religions would allow them to operate on me. However, our religion does not allow that to happen when you walk into a doctor’s surgery, because you have a choice and you can ask. Emergency situations are very different.

It is good to hear that you have spoken to these organisations. The same organisations came to me, too; they could not tell you these things, because they were scared of the Parliament, of the Scottish Government and of this bill coming out. I come from that background and I know that the organisations have voiced such concerns; indeed, we had an organisation that came in here in private to voice them, too. Good on it for doing so, but others have been so scared. Just a few days ago, I was speaking to people for the consultation on my proposed member’s bill, and they said, “Thank God you have phoned us and are speaking to us, because we feel that, with the legislation that is going through now, our voices have not been heard.” Islamic scholars and major organisations have come forward, too.

I am simply putting on record what those organisations have said to me. Emergency situations are very different, and what I am asking for is a very different thing.