 The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the introduction of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. Before I call the cabinet secretary, I would like to make a few brief remarks to the chamber. There is a great deal of interest in the work of the Parliament on this issue and, as always, it is important that we set the correct tone in our debate. The Parliament is charged with careful scrutiny of any proposed legislation and debates many issues about which people feel very passionately. In our debate we must be able to hear each other and to treat each other with respect, even when we disagree wholeheartedly. We can accept that there are opposing views while not sharing them. I am sure that all members will consider very carefully, as always, not just their choice of words but the spirit and tone in which they are delivered. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shona Robison. I have introduced the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill, which proposes reforms to simplify the process for trans men and women to obtain a gender recognition certificate. It is now for this Parliament to consider this bill. Trans people in Scotland risk inequality, harassment and abuse simply for living their lives. They are amongst the most marginalised in our society. Recent Police Scotland statistics show increases in hate crimes with a transgender aggravator. As a society and a Parliament we have a responsibility to protect and support minority groups at risk of harm. Under the Equality Act we have a legal duty to address discrimination against those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Scotland must have a system of gender recognition in order to comply with international human rights law. The current system has been in place for the past 18 years. There is evidence from extensive consultation, two of the largest ever undertaken by the Scottish Government and also a UK Government consultation, that applicants find the current system intrusive and invasive, overly complex and demeaning. We trans people do not apply because of these barriers. That is why we propose to reform the process to make it simpler, more streamlined, more compassionate and less medicalised. Our proposals for change and progress have caused discussion and debate. We know that there are people who have campaigned for such changes for years. We know that there are others who have concerns. This afternoon I will seek to allay some of those concerns by explaining what the bill does and, importantly, what it does not do. It does not introduce new rights or remove rights. It does not change public policy or prevent single sex services being offered where appropriate. It does not change rules or conventions in place and in place for years under the current system, for example access to toilets and changing rooms. I want to be clear to anyone listening. I will listen to the views of everyone, parliamentarians in this chamber and those outwith in a respectful manner throughout the passage of this bill. I urge everyone to do the same as you did at the outset. When it comes to gender recognition, wider issues concerning trans people from healthcare to access to services, discussion has often become heated. I have often found the tone of debate on social media to be angry, unpleasant and abusive, both of trans people and of those who oppose gender recognition reform. I am concerned about the impact all of this has, but particularly how it further stigmatises and marginalises trans people in Scotland. This is not just an unacceptable way to behave towards each other. It is also unhelpful in getting a point of view across. We can disagree on issues without being offensive or abusive. My meetings with stakeholders have shown that it is possible to have constructive respectful conversations about this bill. I ask that this Parliament leads by example and that we work together to set a tone of respectful discussion with a focus on the specific reforms in this bill, just as we have done in the past, for example with same sex marriage, which faced significant opposition at the time. Trans people have been able to apply for legal gender recognition through a gender recognition certificate, or a GRC, since 2004. Obtaining a GRC means that a trans person is legally recognised in their acquired gender and can obtain a new birth certificate showing that gender. Not all trans people have a gender recognition certificate and no one is required to have one. The UK Government estimates that there are up to 500,000 trans people in the UK of whom only around 6,000 have a GRC. Those without a GRC will often have made other changes, including to passports, driving licences and other official documentation. The bill's reforms will move the law closer to how people are already living their lives. For clarity, the GRC provides the legal recognition of changing a birth certificate and I will say again that it has been in place in a right for 18 years. It is this mechanism for obtaining this that we are changing nothing else. We are not introducing new rights for trans people and, importantly, we are not removing or changing any for women and girls. Central to the proposed reforms is removing the medical element of the process. We propose that GRCs be issued on the basis of statutory declaration made by the applicant rather than on a judgment by a tribunal based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The World Health Organization's revised international classification of diseases approved in 2019 redefined gender identity-related health by removing it from a list of mental and behavioural disorders. It took this step to reflect evidence that trans-related identities are not conditions of mental ill health and classifying them as such can cause distress. Moving to a system based on personal declaration rather than the medical diagnosis will bring Scotland into line with well-established systems in Norway, Denmark and Ireland and recent reforms in Switzerland and New Zealand. We are aware of at least 10 countries that have introduced similar processes. The process will remain serious and substantial. Making a false application will be an offence with penalties of up to two years imprisonment or an unlimited fine. The meetings that I have had over recent months while finalising the bill for introduction have allowed me to hear the range of views directly from stakeholders. I have heard from those who have concerns and I have heard about the experiences of trans people who have been through the current process. This follows two of the largest consultations ever undertaken by the Scottish Government. The first in November 2017 saw views on the general principles of reform. It received over 15,500 responses, with 60 per cent agreeing that applicants for legal gender recognition should no longer need to produce medical evidence. In December 2019, a second consultation on a draft bill received over 17,000 responses. While that was qualitative, an analysis of group responses showed a majority at supported reform. We have published independent analysis of both consultations, providing a valuable summary of the range of views. There are no three meetings that I have had that, for some, we are not going far enough and that others would like us not to have a bill at all. The evidence overall from the consultation strengthens the argument for reform and shows that there is significant support for reforming the process of gender recognition. Our consultations provide clear evidence of the negative impact that the current system can have on trans people, so that the UK Government consultation in 2018 and its LGBT survey in 2017. Many respondents described the processes as outmoded, discriminatory, overly complicated, humiliating and invasive. Despite living in their gender for many years, many trans people have not applied for a certificate for those reasons. I have heard about individuals' experiences of exclusion, of a trans woman who had transitioned to nearly 30 years previously and therefore found the evidence requirements impossible, of a trans man whose gender specialist had retired and NHS records had been lost and now cannot obtain a GRC despite having changed their passport and all other ID. The analysis report also sets out the concerns of those who do not want reform. I know that some people are concerned about the potential impact on women and girls. I have met a number of people in groups and I recognise that they feel deeply affected. I am also well aware of the real and legitimate concerns about violence, abuse and harassment women and girls face in our society, but trans people are not responsible for that abuse. Indeed, they often face it themselves. We still live in a society where, unfortunately, it is not hard to find sexist or misogynistic beliefs. We are women and girls face violence at the hands of men, and that is important. The Government is tackling that head-on, providing support for services and focusing on prevention, but we must be clear. All the evidence tells us that the cause of violence against women and girls is predatory and abusive men, not trans people. Importantly, we must not conflate the two. There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour. We are committed to advancing equality for women and protecting women's rights. That commitment is not affected by our support for trans rights. We strongly support the rights and protections that women have under the 2010 Equality Act including single sex exceptions. That part of the act means that there is an exception applied to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In practice, that means that trans people can be excluded from single sex services in some circumstances where that is proportionate and justifiable. The act's explanatory notes give an example of a group counselling session for female victims of sexual assault. That bill does not amend the Equality Act. Nothing in that bill will erode or undermine women's rights. Some of the concerns that I have heard relate to issues under the current system, which is argued, will be compounded by our reforms. For example, concerns about policies implemented by service providers for changing rooms and toilets. Other than for communal residential accommodation, the Equality Act does not apply exceptions specifically to toilets in changing rooms. Trans people can and do use those now, whether they have a GRC or not, and they have been using them for many years. The bill's proposals have no direct effect on single sex spaces, but I have heard arguments that suggest an indirect effect on two grounds—that there will be a significant increase in people obtaining gender recognition or that the bill will drive a wider social shift. Based on international comparison, particularly with Ireland, which introduced a similar process seven years ago, we estimate that the number of applications might rise from around 30 to between 250 and 300 per year—a small number in the context of the Scottish population. I have considered this and agreed that we should monitor the impact of the changes, as with all legislation. Therefore, I have introduced a new provision that requires annual reporting, including on the numbers that are applied for in obtaining a GRC, which I hope will provide some assurance. On the second argument about a wider societal shift, it is true that society moves on and attitudes change. We have seen that already with same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and with the Pardons Act. There is greater equality and acceptance in how we live our lives, who we love and how we solemnise our relationships, and surely that is a good thing. The acceptance and better understanding of trans people is another positive shift in society. The recent BBC poll shows that the general public is more accepting on trans inclusion than looking at social media would suggest, particularly among young people and women. The trans community, like everyone else, have a right to live their lives without fear of prejudice and abuse. The bill proposes that applicants must have lived in their required gender, but the minimum period for that should be reduced from two years to three months with an additional three-month reflection period. Some have argued for removing the requirement altogether, others to keep it at two years. Our view is that this approach strikes the right balance and provides valuable assurance. We consulted on whether to lower the current minimum age for applicants of 18 to 16. We have carefully considered this, examining different views and evidence, and it is a question that is finally balanced. We have examined comparable systems in other countries where a range of approaches are taken, including parental consent, a role for the courts or requiring evidence, so we have considered these within a Scottish context. Those who have raised concerns say that under 18s are too young to make such an important decision. However, 16-year-olds can leave home, get a full-time job, change their name, consent to medical treatment, marry and vote. Earlier this week, the Cabinet met the Scottish Youth Parliament and members spoke eloquently about how young trans people feel excluded by a system that denies them access to legal recognition, particularly in the case of someone wanting to make the legal change before moving into further or higher education or employment. We also recognise that those are important decisions and it is vital that everyone applying to the process, especially young people, fully understand and carefully consider before doing so. We have concluded that the minimum age should be reduced to 16, with support and guidance provided to young people through schools, third sector bodies and the national records of Scotland. Under the oversight of the Registrar General, national records of Scotland will routinely give additional and careful consideration of applications from 16 and 17-year-olds. They will provide support on the process and, where necessary, will undertake sensitive investigation, and that could include face-to-face conversations with applicants. Every 16 or 17-year-old who applies will be offered and encouraged to take up the option of a conversation with NRS to talk through the process. One other change since publication of the draft bill relates to the power to charge an application fee. There should be no financial barrier to achieving legal gender recognition. The draft bill included a power for the Registrar General to set a fee for applications that has been removed. It is our view that no fee should be charged and removing the power gives a clear commitment to that. Finally, four of the five parties in the chamber made clear their support for reform in their recent manifestos. However, I recognise that for individuals, just as within the public, there may be a range of views. I understand the views and concerns of those who oppose the reforms, and, just because they disagree with the proposals, people should not be automatically labelled as transphobic. If everyone is respectful, we should all be able to discuss the proposals and our views in a civilised manner. However, it is clear that transphobia exists. As elected representatives, we must ensure that transphobic discourse does not seize onto the concerns that people have about the bill. In that context, it is so important that we discuss our differences of opinion and consider the evidence in a way that is measured and respectful, and I will maintain an open door policy for MSPs who want to discuss any aspect of the bill. Following some of the most extensive consultation ever undertaken in Scotland, the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland bill is now introduced and sets out the Scottish Government's proposal for a balanced and proportionate way of improving the current system. It is now for this Parliament to consider. I am happy to take questions. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business, and I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question could press the request to speak buttons now or enter R in the chat function. I call Megan Gallacher. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and to the cabinet secretary for advanced sites of her statement. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I welcome the cabinet secretary's tone of her statement. I agree with her that we must be constructive and respectful when discussing this important but polarised piece of legislation. The Scottish Conservatives recognise improvements to the system would be beneficial for trans people. We will constructively scrutinise the proposals in the bill that we help to make the system and the process easier. However, the proposals as they stand do not protect women's rights. They do not offer enough protection for women's safety. The concerns of women are legitimate. They are reasonable, they are honestly and sincerely held. Will the cabinet secretary agree to listen again to the valid concerns of women who feel that their rights are under threat? I thank Megan Gallacher for her tone and for her offer for constructive scrutiny. I think that that is very welcome. First, on the issue of women's rights and safety concerns and all of those being sincerely held, of course they are sincerely held. In my statement, I have not suggested otherwise. Of course I have listened to those concerns. I understand those concerns, which is why I am making one of the reasons why I am making this extended statement to Parliament today. We have to, as legislators, always look at the evidence. The evidence is critical here. All of the evidence, as I said in my statement, shows that the threat to women and girls' safety comes from predatory and abusive men, not the trans community. If you look at the experience of those 10 countries, some of which have had this in place in Ireland for example for seven years, there is no evidence that some of the fears that Megan Gallacher outlined have come to pass. We have to look at the evidence. I am sure that that is what this Parliament will collectively do through the work of the committee and the work that we will do on a cross-party basis. Let us make sure that we look at the evidence, but I welcome her tone. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement and the tone today. This is about rights, and this Parliament has been bold before, with section 2A or known as section 28. We can and I hope that we will be bold again. Trans people's rights are human rights. They must be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else. Right now, the process of getting a gender recognition certificate does not do that. It is lengthy and traumatic, which is why we support reform of the Gender Recognition Act and to demedicalise the process. However, we must acknowledge that, in the time that it has taken us to get here, the Government has allowed a vacuum to develop and that has allowed fear and ignorance to prosper. The cabinet secretary says in the statement that some people are concerned about the potential impact on women and girls. It is essential that, as the bill progresses, everyone's rights are protected. The Scottish Government made a commitment to proceed in a way that builds consensus, but the reality is that discussion around that has become toxic for everyone involved, and this Government has not done enough to address that. Can the cabinet secretary please set out today how she intends to move forward in a way that brings people together and limits the opportunities for more hateful and abusive rhetoric? Make sure that we can look back on this moment with pride. Can the cabinet secretary please set out how we can turn this moment into something that we can be proud of? I thank Pam Duncan Glancy for her remarks and for her questions. It has taken time to get to this point, and I think that we all understand the reasons for the complexity of the issue and the two consultations. It has been a difficult process to get to this moment, and that is the fact of the matter. It is essential that everyone's rights are protected. As I set out in my statement, it is important that it is as important to set out what the bill does not do as it is to set out what it does do. Let me remind people that this is about changing the process by which someone obtains a gender recognition certificate. It does not change any of the rights that are already held under the Equality Act 2010. That is important. In relation to single-sex services, I made very clear that those exceptions where transgender people, even with a gender recognition certificate, can, in certain circumstances, be excluded from those services. It is important that we try to build consensus. Part of that is focusing on the evidence and on what the bill is proposing, rather than on some of the other matters that are not related to the bill that circulates around discussion about the issue. Over the past few months, I have tried to meet people who have pretty different views on the bill from those who wanted us to go further in relation to what is in the bill and those who did not want the bill at all. I have tried in those discussions to focus on what the bill is trying to do, rather than on some of the issues that are not related to the bill. I will continue to do that. I will have an open door policy, but I think that it is perhaps the responsibility of all of us in this chamber to also do that and to focus on the bill and to try to answer the questions as best as we can. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary wholeheartedly for her statement today. It is most welcome, as is the legislation that she publishes this afternoon. I also want to thank her for her clarity, because clarity is so important. I echo her hope that we can conduct our debate and scrutiny of the bill in an atmosphere of informed respect. I am confident that the solemn scrutiny of this Parliament will get it right. I offer the unconditional support of my party for the reform of the existing Gender Recognition Act. The current process is harmful. It is a liberal and it fails to recognise the human rights of transgender people. Does the cabinet secretary share my belief that it is wrong that we still have to ask people to submit their gender to a group of people that they have never met? Does she also agree with me that we need to design a system that is compassionate, simple and streamlined and allows people to live their lives free from discrimination? Yes, I agree with that. I again thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for his questions and the tone of his contributions. It is important that we listen to the experiences. I tried to give a couple of examples in my statement of the actual experience of people who are going through the process. It is interesting that, according to UK Government figures, there are around 25,000 people who are part of the trans community here in Scotland. Around only about 600 of them actually have a Gender Recognition Certificate. I see the bill as the law catching up with how people are already living their lives. Far more of those 25,000 people would want to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, but the process, as is outlined in my statement by Alex Cole-Hamilton, puts people off doing that. You can understand why. If we focus on that, compassion is an important word here. We have a good tradition here in this Parliament in Scotland of showing compassion. That is one of the most marginalised sections of our community, and this bill is important for them. It is important about saying who we are as a nation as well, and I hope that we can go forward on that basis. As has been said, the debate around gender recognition can at times involve the youth of language that some people find hurtful and derogatory. Falling on from the remarks that were made by the Presiding Officer and all Opposition spokespeople, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important for all of us, as Scotland's elected representatives, to set the tone for this debate by setting out our positions and listening carefully to the views of others in a respectful and courteous manner? Yes, I do, and I think that we have made a good start to that, if you do not mind the same, Presiding Officer, both by your introductory remarks and the tone of the comments and questions so far. If we can keep that up, we can lead by example about dealing with these very controversial and sometimes difficult issues, but I think that we have made a good start. There has been much discussion in the debate about the bill and about the wider issues in relation to trans people from all of the issues that we know. The tone of debate on social media, especially, has not been helpful. As I said in my statement, I think that we can try to reset some of that debate and the tone of it. As I said as well, I will listen to the views of everyone and my door is open to members across this chamber. I made reference to some of the meetings that I had with stakeholders who have very differing views on the bill. Actually, even though there may have been those who were most vehemently against the proposals, those meetings were very courteous, and I thank them for that. The bill should not be portrayed as having sides or pitting people against each other. That is something that, as parliamentarians, we need to guard against. Therefore, I ask again that we in Parliament lead by example, as we are doing today, work together, set a tone of respectful discussion with a focus on the specific and actual proposals in this bill. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Rona Mackay. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said that simplifying the law on gender could have consequences for data collection, participation and drug testing in competitive sport, the criminal justice system and many other areas. Cabinet Secretary, are you convinced that the impact of this bill has been considered in all relevant areas? Yes. I thank Alexander Stewart for his questions. Yes, I do think that they have, but we continue to do so, and the Parliament will do so as part of its evidence gathering and looking and scrutinising the evidence. Obviously, I am more than aware of the EHRC's correspondence and communication about this, and I continue to correspond with them, because I want to know what the evidence base that they have looked at in order to change the position that has gone from obviously encouraging all of us, as our number one ask, to include the demedicalisation process just a year ago for the Scottish Parliament elections, to quite a different position. They are obviously entitled to do that, but I think that we are also entitled to ask what the evidence base for that is. I am sure that the committee will look at that, and the Parliament will look at that, but I am happy to continue to keep that dialogue open. Cabinet Secretary, I was glad to hear your highlight that transgender people face harassment for living their lives and that some social media comments are just not acceptable. I have a constituent with a transgender child who has found some of those comments and misinformation about what the bill proposes to be very upsetting. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that transgender people should be supported to get on with their lives without their human rights being prejudiced? Yes, I do agree with that. Trans people just want to be able to get on with their lives as part of society without facing prejudice and harassment, and they want their legal documentation to reflect the way that they are already living their lives. That is a reasonable thing to ask, and I think that we should all work towards that goal. As we have said a lot, the way that we talk about those issues matters, because we know that the impact of a bad discourse around this issue does have a direct effect on the trans community. I said in my statement that there has been a rise in hate crime with a transgender aggravator, and that is something that we should all be concerned about. As with all debates on equality issues, it is really important to try to show empathy and understanding and to appreciate that other people's experience and feelings may be different from our own, but that does not make them less valid. I absolutely agree with Rona Mackay, and I think that it is those voices of some of the most marginalised people in our society that we also need to listen to. I want to ask about the interaction between section 22 and the 2010 act exemptions. The consultation on the draft bill did note that there was a question raised over whether section 22 of the GRA could make it harder to use the general occupational requirement exemption. In a letter to me in November, the cabinet secretary said that the Government would consider a further exception to section 22 that should be made, and that if the Government would issue guidance on section 22, there does not seem to be changes proposed in the bill published today, so is the cabinet secretary intended to issue guidance and would the guidance be issued during the process of the bill? First of all, on guidance, there will be guidance issued around a number of the elements of the bill going forward, but let me be clear on the general occupation exemptions. That does not change because it is part of the Equality Act 2010. Let me give you an example. If someone was working in the field of providing intimate care, as is the case at the moment, it is absolutely legitimate for a patient or someone who is receiving social care to say who they do and who they do not want to provide that service, and that is underpinned by the general occupation exception under the 2010 Equality Act. That bill does not change that at all. That remains as was, and that was the important thing that I said in my statement that it does not take any rights away, it does not give any more responsibilities or anybody any more rights. What it does is to set out the change in the process for a GRC, but the elements that I have referred to do not change at all. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also welcome the tone of the debate from the comments across the whole chamber today. It is very welcome indeed. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this bill seeks to realise the rights of trans people and does not change the rights of anyone else and that by standing together as one, we further the rights of marginalized communities as well as for us all across society? That is an important point made by Fulton MacGregor. We have always achieved rights for each other if we stood together to strive for further rights and equality. That bill is about achievement of current rights by allowing trans people to have better access to their existing rights for legal gender recognition. It is not about giving new rights to trans people and, as I have said before, the bill does not change the rights for anyone else. The process of being able to obtain legal recognition has been around for 18 years, but the consultation has shown that the current system is a barrier for many who would otherwise want to apply. That is something that the bill will resolve. I will stress again that the elements under the Equality Act 2010 and the protections there remain. The exceptions are important. The Scottish Government supports those exceptions and the bill does not make any changes to them. Maggie Chapman, to be called by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. We know that trans people here in Scotland and indeed in all parts of the world are at heightened risk of violence, harassment and discrimination, including human rights violations from bullying and verbal abuse to assault, rape and murder. Trans people are up to four times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than cis people. The cabinet secretary has also been clear about what this reform bill does and, importantly, what it does not do. Can she reaffirm that the bill, as it progresses through Parliament, must not be used as an excuse to debate trans people's right to exist? Can she also outline what we can all do to ensure that we do not undermine the safety and rights of trans people? Cabinet secretary, I agree that this bill is not about whether or not trans people should be able to live their lives as they wish. They have those protections under the 2010 Equality Act explicitly, so they have had those for 12 years and they have had the ability to obtain a gender recognition certificate for close on 20 years. It is important that we remember that those issues and the way that we discuss them have real impacts on trans people. Hate crimes, as I said, with a transgender aggravator recorded by Police Scotland, have increased every year since 2014-15. That is not a good position and something that we need to change. That is why it is so vital that we think about the way that we talk about those issues, our language matters and how we conduct ourselves around those debate matters. It is also important that we are not setting one set of people's rights against another. All rights matter and we are stronger by promoting and strengthening everybody's rights. That makes us stronger as a Parliament and as a nation. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary states that the legislation and the policy of self-id does not change the protections afforded by the Equality Act in terms of single sex provision. That is the aspect of the bill that my constituents ask about the most. I understand that many organisations and institutions are already operating based on self-id and that it may well be working for them, but that does not take away the need for female spaces for others. If the policy of self-id is made law, how will the Government ensure that single sex spaces and services for the purposes of upholding dignity and privacy—for example, hospital wards, therapy groups, refuges and accommodation—are available to women and girls who need them and are not diminished? I know that the issues that she has raised about the potential impact of the changes on single sex spaces and single sex services have been quite a focus. I want to provide further reassurance on that, which I have done so far in my statement. That is why I have made clear today and in my engagement with people that the bill does not make any changes to the current position at all on the Equality Act protections. What it does is simplify a process that has been in existence for 18 years and how a gender recognition certificate is obtained. It is also important to say that trans people do not need to have a legal gender recognition certificate in order to access facilities that align with their gender. Those are protections that trans people and everyone else have under the Equality Act 2010 and nothing in what we are proposing will change the Equality Act or current practices. What the member outlines could be said of the current process that trans people have been using for years, with no evidence of widespread harm, facilities like toilets and changing rooms. Although we may refer to them as single sex spaces, they are not legally defined as such under the Equality Act and, of course, GRCs are not necessary to access them. However, on the wider point around healthcare provision and single sex services, which could include refugees therapy groups, the Equality Act provisions will be unchanged. The act sets out the protected characteristics and provides for exceptions. As I mentioned earlier, on to Claire Baker, there is a general occupation requirement exception that can be applied when appropriate in relation to health services, for example, where intimate health and personal care services are provided. Our public services have been managing those issues for many years. I think that, as I understand, the EHRC is going to be revising guidance, which will perhaps help public bodies in terms of the practicalities of how they manage those issues. However, the reality is that they have been managing those issues for many years. I am happy to keep discussing with Ruth Maguire and others about the detail of those matters as we take the bill forward. Women's groups have felt sidelined during the consultation process and believed that the bill was a fetter complete before they had had the opportunity to discuss it with the Scottish Government. Can the cabinet secretary advise what changes have been made to the bill following discussions with women's groups, which took place as late as January 2022? I thank Tess White for her questions. The bill is not a fetter complete because it has just been introduced into this Parliament. It will be for this Parliament, for yourselves, for everybody across this chamber to scrutinise the bill, to look at the evidence, to hear all the different views and then to come to conclusions about whether the bill should be supported. That is our role as legislators to scrutinise that evidence, and that will be important. I have spent a lot of time in meetings with people who are very supportive of the bill and who are vehemently opposed to the bill. I have tried to go through some of the issues and concerns that they raised. Whether those fears have been allayed, I am not sure, but it is fair to say that some of the fears and concerns are not directly related to the proposals in the bill. They are more of a general wider concern that the bill does not change and are issues relating to the existing processes, but fears are fears, and we have to do what we can to address those concerns. I will continue to do that. On the specific question of changes, one of the important changes that did arise from listening to the concerns that I was asked about is how we will monitor the impact of the legislation. In response to that, we have introduced a new provision in the bill that requires annual reporting on the operation of the legislation. Ireland has done that for seven years in relation to the operation of the legislation, including things such as the number of GRCs issued. That is a concrete example of having listened to those concerns and having changed the bill in accordance. I have spoken directly with young trans people and older trans people who have been through the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. They are fed back the importance of being able to access a GRC and that the current system creates barriers to do so. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the lived experience of those trans people is what is important and that simplifying the process will better support trans people to access their rights and live the life that they want? I agree with that. Fundamentally, it is about supporting people who are already living in their acquired gender. It is clear from our consultations that many trans people who already have a right to legal gender recognition feel discouraged from applying under the current system for all the reasons that we have talked about during that statement. Those who have gone through the process have found it lengthy, invasive and intrusive, having their life circumstances in very personal details considered by a tribunal. The bill seeks to remove those barriers for people accessing their human rights by removing the requirement for medical diagnosis and reducing the period in which a trans person is currently required to evidence that they have lived in their acquired gender. However, it is important to say that it will remain a serious and substantial process, requiring applicants to make a statutory declaration that they intend to live the rest of their life in their acquired gender. In making a false application, there will be a hefty fine or indeed imprisonment in some circumstances. I am also glad that Karen Adam mentioned young people. As I have heard directly from young people, it is very clear that they want to access those rights in an easier way, that there are too many barriers and that they want those rights when they become adults, so that they can get on and live their life in the way that they want to in their acquired gender. I welcome publication of the bill and associate myself with comments of my coleg Andrew Genglantian, with comments across the chamber about the importance of respect in the debate. I seek clarity on the proposed timescales. Delay has led to a vacuum, contributing to anxiety and I think the toxicity of public discourse. As a legislator, it is now our duty to scrutinise the bill and I believe that clarity on the anticipated timeframe for each stage would be welcome, so it is the cabinet secretary in a position to outline this for Parliament. Cabinet secretary, I hope that you could hear that clearly. I think that I have got the gist of it. It is Parliament that sets the timetable for the bill and obviously the stage 1 debate and then stage 2 consideration and then stage 3 will be set out by Parliament the role of the committee. The equality committee is crucial here. The bill is now introduced to Parliament. It is for Parliament to agree the timeframes for ensuring that there is the proper consultation and the ability for Parliament to look at all the evidence. I hope that that reassures Paul O'Kane that we can get on with the job of getting the bill scrutinised and debated in Parliament. If I, the ways in which the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has become increasingly recognised as outdated and should no longer be considered as a mental disorder. Cabinet secretary, would you like me to ask Ms Nicoll to repeat that? No, I refer to my statement about moving away from the gender dysphoria being regarded as a mental disorder. As I said in my statement, central to our view of a balanced and proportionate way of improving the system is the removal of the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. For all the reasons that I have outlined in the statement and question so far, the bill sets out that the application process will be based on a statutory declaration made by the applicant. I have laid out why. I think that so few members of the trans community have a GRC for all those reasons. The role of the World Health Organization, as I mentioned in my statement, in recategorising gender identity related to health has been helpful. It was previously thought of as a mental health disorder, but it took its step to reflect that trans identity is not a condition of mental ill health and classifying them as such can cause distress. In a report published in December about reform of the Gender Recognition Act, it is also worth noting that the House of Commons Women and Equality Select Committee called for substantial changes, including the demedicalising of the process. I think that there is recognition, not just here in Scotland, that the process needs reformed, and I think that that is something that we can lead the way on. In the equality impact assessment for the proposals that the question has raised, do you think that the policy impacts on men and women in different ways, to which the Scottish Government answer is no? Yet every single women's group that we have spoken to say that it does. Does the cabinet secretary think that the Government has given proper consideration to the views of the women's groups? Let me say first of all that the equality impact assessment has been an important part and a full equality impact assessment has been done. On the issue of—I accept that there are some women's groups who oppose this or some women who oppose this—many women and women's groups who support this, not least some of the women's groups who provide support to some of our most vulnerable women. It is also interesting when you look at the BBC poll that does not reflect that argument. The support for reform of the gender recognition process was highest among young people and among women. Women were far more sympathetic to the need for a reformed process than men were. It is important that we recognise that women have a range of views on that, but it is not accurate to say that most women oppose this, because the facts suggest otherwise. What is important is that the concerns that Pam Gosel has raised and that others have raised is that we take those seriously, that we do not ignore them, that we do not dismiss them and that we address them. However, we have also got to point out that many of those issues are not related to what the bill is about. It is a more general concern. Some of it may be about—I feel this—a woman who has been campaigning for women's equality for decades and is a feminist and a mum of a daughter. I get frustrated that we are not making the progress for women's equality that we need to make, but that is not the fault of the trans community. We have work to do to make sure that we can progress women's equality. Let's keep talking about it and let's try to reassure where we can. Clearly, some health issues are linked more to biological sex, which cannot be changed rather than to gender. Will organisations involved in healthcare, such as the NHS and the prison service, be expected to keep records of both sex and gender? First of all, people have been able to change their gender under the current 2004 act, so people have been able to do that. Interestingly, the existing gender recognition legislation talks about gender insects in the legislation. The bill makes no changes to legal requirements or policy on data collection none at all, or record keeping or the criminal justice system. All public bodies must ensure that their policies and practices are in line with the Equality Act 2010, which sets out protections for the protected characteristics, which include sex and gender reassignment, and the exceptions that protection single sex services, among other things. The bill does not change any of that. I think that this is an important point to make, because I know that the issue of prisons has been raised with me and others. Obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not automatically provide access to specific accommodation. The Scottish Prison Service already makes such decisions about accommodating trans prisoners in a way that seeks to protect both the wellbeing and rights of the individual, as well as the welfare and rights of others. Basically, if they risk assess that someone should not be placed in the women's estate because they pose a risk, they will not be. Similarly, if they risk assess that someone could be at risk themselves, they will not place them in the place at risk. They are already doing that, but, of course, the Scottish Prison Service is reviewing its policy towards transgender prisoners to make sure that they continue to get that right. That is what our public services should be doing. That concludes ministerial statement on the introduction of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland bill, but we will have a brief pause before we move to the next ministerial statement.