 Welcome to the 21st meeting of 2022, session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. First item on our agenda is consideration of six negative instruments. I refer members to paper 1. The instruments are justice of the peace courts fees Scotland order 2022, sheriff court fees order 2022, high court of judiciary fees order 2022, sheriff appeal court fees order 2022, adults with incapacity, public guardians fees, Scotland regulations 2022, court of session, et cetera fees orders. Do any members have comments on any of these instruments? Thank you, convener. I'm concerned that the instruments up the cost for access and justice by 2 per cent in July and a further 2 per cent next April at a time when disabled people and many others are facing extreme cost of living increases. Some of the evidence that was submitted to the consultation on the increases has highlighted that the exemptions and the disregards for some income, including for disabled people, are not sufficient to ensure access to justice and protect against poverty. I'm quite concerned about the increases, and I note the concerns of organisations such as Inclusion Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland and others. Thank you. Any further comments, Maggie? Thanks, Jo. I'm wondering whether that is something that we can raise with the minister when we see her in September. Is she coming in September? Or maybe write a letter, because I think there are two things. There's not only the uplift, but there's also the threshold limit. I'm wondering whether we can have a discussion about that, maybe not obviously for the July uplift, but certainly in advance of April and having some conversations with her about that would be helpful. I'd also like some clarification around the exemption from court fees for those in receipt of personal independence plan and adult disability payment with a gross annual income of £2592. I also think that we need some clarification around the impact of inflation. It does make reference to that, but perhaps inflationary pressures should be looked at sooner rather than later. Those are all matters that we can discuss in private, and we can either agree to write to the minister or indeed make sure that we are seeing her early in September. For today, there is no scope for us to get the minister in front of us as the negative instruments come into force, but if any member wants to take any further action, if they discuss that with the clerks, it is obviously a parliamentary process. All that being said, and all of those points on record, are we content formally not to make any comments to the Parliament on these instruments? That being the case, that concludes consideration of the SSIs, and we'll suspend briefly. The next agenda item is to continue to take an evidence on the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. Before we start our formal evidence sessions, I'd like to put on the record our thanks to a number of groups who have engaged with us privately over the last week or so to give us their views on the bill. Anonymised notes of those sessions will be published in due course. We will now continue our formal evidence taking. I would like to welcome to the meeting Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, and officials Peter Hope-Jones, Head of Gender Recognition Unit and Colin Gilchrist, Solicitor in the Scottish Government. I refer members to papers 2 and 3, and we invite Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and morning everyone. For nearly two decades, the Gender Recognition Act has provided a route to legal recognition for trans people. However, evidence shows that the process can be lengthy, invasive and demeaning. Since it was introduced, the World Health Organization has recategorised gender identity health, making it clear that being transgender is not a condition of mental ill health and classifying it as such can cause distress. Only around 6,000 people of an estimated half a million trans people in the UK have a gender recognition certificate or a GRC. The aim of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill is to reform that process, bringing it more in line with the current understanding and international best practice, and to remove barriers to trans people accessing their existing rights. I know that there are deeply held views on transgender issues and I do appreciate that reservations about the bill are often connected with legitimate concerns about the violence, abuse and harassment that women and girls face in our society. As I have said before, trans people are not responsible for that abuse and often face it themselves. I am also aware that many view those reforms as vital and overdue. It is important to focus on the reforms that are contained in the bill as introduced and to be very clear about what the bill does. The bill introduces a new process for obtaining a GRC, open to those born or adopted in Scotland or ordinarily resident here. It removes the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, reduces the minimum period of living in the acquired gender from two years to three months, while introducing a new three-month reflection period and lowers the minimum age for applying from 18 to 16. The process of obtaining a GRC would remain a serious and substantial undertaking. Applicants would still have to make a statutory declaration that they are currently and intend to live in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives. Under the bill, offences relating to making a false application carry potential penalties of up to two years in prison. Based on international comparison, we estimate that the number of Scottish GRCs might rise from around 30 to between 250 and 300 a year. That is what the bill will do. I know that there has been some misunderstanding about what the bill does not do and I want to be very clear on that, too. The bill does not change the protection set out in the Equality Act. It does not change the exceptions in that act that allow single-sex services to exclude trans people where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, including where those trans people hold a GRC. The bill does not change or remove women's rights. It does not make changes to how toilets and changing rooms operate. It does not redefine what a man or a woman is and it does not change or expand trans people's rights. The bill does not change the effect of a GRC, which is that the individual is legally recognised in their acquired gender. The bill does not change the policy or laws of England or any other country. It is for other Governments and Parliaments to decide how GRCs are recognised in their jurisdictions. The bill does not change the way gender identity healthcare is provided or make changes to public policy, including NHS patient care. It does not alter practices for collecting or processing data, including that relating to crimes. It does not change the way Scottish prisons accommodate the people in their care and it makes no changes to women's sport whether professional, amateur or in schools. As the committee has already heard, the development of the bill has involved some of the most extensive consultation that is undertaken by the Scottish Government. I have personally met a wide range of interested parties and I know that the committee has also heard from a wide and varied group of organisations and individuals during its scrutiny sessions. Some of those people support the bill and others are opposed and I am aware that I am unlikely to change their minds by anything I have to say today, but that does not mean that I have not listened and considered their views just as you will do. I commend the respectful and considered manner of everyone involved in the process. I remain of the view that the reforms set out in the bill strike an appropriate balance in improving access to important human rights, while also providing a robust and serious process not to be undertaken lightly. However, I look forward to hearing the views of the committee based on the evidence heard at the end of your consideration of stage 1. I am happy to take questions. Thank you cabinet secretary. I now move to questions starting with Maggie Chapman. Thank you very much. Good morning cabinet secretary. Thank you for joining us this morning and for your opening remarks. I have a few questions around the removal of the diagnosis for gender dysphoria and the gender recognition panel. A couple of questions around the removal of the diagnosis for gender dysphoria and the removal of the gender recognition panel. Firstly, on gender dysphoria, you talked in your opening remarks about the shift away from treating being trans as a mental health condition. Where do you think the importance of this lies in separating legal transition from that medical transition? I think that the removal and the separating out of the legal and medical elements is important. Obviously, the redefinition from the World Health Organization has been important for a number of countries that have changed their processes. The evidence that we have heard from those who have gone through the current system under the 2004 act describes the process as being very demeaning. The gender recognition panel is a group of people who are unknown to the person that they feel that it is a very difficult onerous process. Therefore, we believe, as many other countries have done, that the time is right to move to what is seen as international best practice. There have been a number of countries that I know that the committee will have looked at. Ireland has obviously been one of our nearest neighbours who have moved to this position. Recently, over the past few days, Spain has announced that it will be moving in this direction. We think that it is in line with best practice and, certainly, along the lines that are recommended by the international bodies. We have heard evidence from people who are concerned that the removal of the diagnosis potentially opens up the process of applying for a GRC to a wider group of people, people who may be bad faith actors. It also removes that kind of medical diagnosis. I suppose that some of the concerns might be that it takes away from the seriousness of the decision. I am wondering what your comments on that are. It is still a very serious step to take in terms of a statutory declaration. You have to declare that you are going to live the rest of your life in that gender. I think that it has been shown over the international evidence that has arisen that there is really no evidence of the changes in those laws being misused by, as you describe, bad actors. The evidence given by the Scottish Human Rights Commission was very strong in that area. It can find no evidence of the misuse of the process. There are, of course, quite hefty penalties for misuse. I laid that out in my opening remarks that, if someone is making a false declaration, they will feel the full force of the law in terms of that. I suppose that, moving on to the gender recognition panel, the process of self-declaration obviously removes the need for that. What do you see are the main benefits of removing the panel for trans people going through the process? The reason that so few people in the trans community compare to the number of trans people in the UK—as I said in my opening remarks—is that up to 500,000 people. The fact that only 6,000 people have obtained a gender recognition certificate suggests that the evidence that we have heard about the process is really off-putting to people. Therefore, having a process of statutory declaration will enable people to essentially gain the legal recognition of the way that they have been living their lives for many years. Many will have already changed their documentation. I suspect that the spike that Ireland saw when it changed to a process of statutory declaration, which settled down in terms of the numbers after that. However, that spike I suspect would be people who had been living in their acquired gender for many, many years, and they were then taking the step for that legal recognition. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that I heard was someone who was older in years. The most important thing for them in all of this was that they would be able to have their death certificate record, the gender that they had lived their entire life in. For people that this affects, a tiny number of people, it can be really important for them. For me, that highlights how important it is—it is a very personal thing—to have that end-of-life being recognised in the gender that you have lived your whole life in was very powerful. I think that we heard similar evidence in a couple of the sessions that we held. I suppose that the reverse of that is that there are concerns that the removal of any form of gatekeeping or any form of formal safeguards is troubling for some people, especially if it makes it easier for the examples that we have heard given to us relating to prisoner-serving sentences for sexual assault. Are there safeguards or gatekeeping measures that we should be considering? The prisons are an area that has been raised, and I think that you have heard evidence from the Scottish Prison Service. They have said that whether or not someone has a gender recognition certificate does not affect the way in which they risk assess the person. At the moment, they have placed people in the estate that, whether it is about the safety of themselves or the safety of others, will place someone in the most appropriate estate, whether they have a gender recognition certificate. That is right, and that is reassuring in terms of the process. We have talked about a tiny number of people here. It is important not to conflate that there is no evidence that there is a higher number of people who are sex offenders within the trans community at all. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that sexual offences are committed mainly by men on women. That is the overwhelming evidence. However, wherever there are transgender prisoners for whatever offence, the management of them is down to the Scottish Prison Service, and I think that they do that very carefully. Obviously, they have their review on that at the moment to make sure that, if they need to make any further changes, that review will guide them in that. Thank you. In relation to the role of the registrar general, who will oversee the administration of the process, there is a question about how the Government will ensure that the registrar general is resourced sufficiently to be able to support people going through the process and any questions that they may have, but there is also something around the regulations that the registrar general will have the powers to make. What are the constraints or parameters in which you see those regulations being made? The registrar general will have an important role here, not least in making sure that the guidance is clear and supportive in terms of being able to explain in clear language. That guidance will be worked on involving a number of organisations. I know that, for example, there has been evidence from the Children's Commissioner for 16-17-year-olds that the language used in the guidance needs to be clear that there would potentially be the signposting to other organisations that are beyond the registrar general's ambit of providing guidance. In relation to the regulations and any changes, Peter, do you want to add something to that? First, you mentioned costs to the NRS and the registrar general. We published a financial memorandum that sets out that we do not anticipate huge costs from that because the numbers are expected to be relatively low, as the cabinet secretary has already said. We have suggested initial costs of 300 to 350,000 with ongoing annual costs of about 150,000 a year, and those would be met by the Scottish Government. In terms of the power to make regulations, I think that the most important thing to stress there is that the powers as set out in the bill allow the registrar general to tweak the specific process in terms of the information that might be provided. What it doesn't allow them to do is to change the basis on which certificates would be issued, so it wouldn't allow them to reintroduce the requirement for medical evidence, for example, for certificates to be issued. Obviously, the bill sets out the process through which those regulations would have to follow. If those regulations were making changes to the bill or to the legislation, they would have to go through an affirmative process in the Parliament. On that point, GRCs that are issued by the register general, will they have a UK-wide effect? Or what is your intention to do in terms of the information that is passed between registers from here in Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of issuing a revised birth certificate? What happens in that situation? First of all, the systems that other parts of the UK have will be for them to decide, and whether the UK Government's recognition of Scottish GRCs will be a matter for them also. England is not moving to self-decoration, so what happens then? There are some fundamental rights that will remain the same that are enshrined under the equality act 2010 that are applied to people whether or not they have a GRC. Those would be in every day. Your rights at work in terms of any interaction with public bodies remain the same, whether someone has a GRC or not, because they are protected under the equality act 2010. The process that works at the moment is that the Scottish register general can update Scottish birth certificates and register originals in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and can update their respective birth registers and certificates. As it works at the moment, applications go to the gender recognition panel. If they are approved by the gender recognition panel, they inform the Scottish register general and they make the update in Scotland. We are proposing the exact same thing. We would issue gender recognition certificates in Scotland, we would update the birth register or adoption register in Scotland as appropriate, and we would inform register originals in the respective other administrations. It would be for those administrations to decide how to act based on that information. How would you inform them, but do your data systems, are they compatible? Yes, because currently it goes the other direction, but the register general is in touch. Have you had a conversation with the UK Government regarding the effect of this bill to the rest of the UK? Yes, mainly at official level. Peter can say a little bit more, but there has been on-going engagement all the way through this bill. Peter, do you want to say a little bit more about the engagement with officials that you have had? Yes, of course. We regularly meet and talk with officials down south on specific cross-border issues, but also more generally. We have had those initial conversations at official level, but the formal section 104 process and the formal conversations about mutual recognition have not taken place yet. That is quite normal with a bill that we would not be entering into a formal section 104 process until nearing the end of its passage or after it is passed. You do not see any risk in not going down that route of considering that you may need a section 104 order before this bill goes through. We are following the routine process of a section 104. Would you advise that this committee takes evidence on that? That would be a matter for us around the mechanics of the legislation, rather than a part of the bill as such. It is about the mechanics of the legislation once the bill has finished its process through Parliament. At that point, there is nothing odd about that. It is just the normal course of events that would be a technical issue, which we do not envisage having any issues. You do not see any challenges through the Supreme Court? No. Whether the UK Government changes its own processes is clearly a matter for them, as is whether or not they recognise Scottish gender recognition certificates, and that is a matter for them, but it does not affect our ability to make changes to the law here. UK Government, in considering the recognition of Scottish certificates, will also need to consider how they recognise certificates and gender recognition processes that have been gone through elsewhere in the world. Currently, they have processes in place for that, and they have a list of recognised territories and a process for that. That has not been updated for at least a decade. We understood that they were in the process of reconsidering that, and I imagine that they will want to think about that alongside that, which is quite a challenging and substantial project. Okay, thanks. Okay, thank you, and Pam Goswll, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Cabinet Secretary, 59 per cent of those who responded to the short survey were not in favour of the proposed reforms, and in turn I have received numerous correspondence from individuals who feel their views have not been represented or heard. In response to this committee, members and particularly clerks have had to make last ditch attempts to secure witnesses to ensure that the scrutiny of the bill is more balanced and include last-minute private sessions out with parliamentary time to ensure that those affected by the bill will be heard from. We have received a large number of additional written evidence in such a short period of time, and there simply has not been enough time to scrutinise such an important bill. Cabinet Secretary, would you agree that stage one has been rushed through and that those affected by the bill, in addition to the committee members and democracy, more generally would be benefitted from more thorough, throughout an approach with a longer timescale for the evidence sessions, and therefore we do believe that at this stage it would be beneficial to delay stage one of this bill? No, I do not agree with that. This has been subject to a lot of consultation. There have been two Scottish and one UK consultations, all of which received high numbers of responses. In those consultations there was generally more support than opposition, but I take the point about the responses to the committee. In addition to that, we have seen various polls that have been done, for example the BBC poll, which found 60 per cent of the public support reform, with young people and women more likely to support it. More recently, a report from More in Common found that people are perhaps less divided on trans issues than social media would indicate. The two formal consultations were among the largest of our undertaken by the Scottish Government, with over 30,000 responses in total. Work has gone on over a number of years to get us to this point. I have met organisations both for and against the bill and during those conversations that were very wide-ranging. Some suggestions for a change were made from both sides of the debate, and I have considered all of those. Before that, my predecessor Shirley-Anne Somerville had also met a range of organisations. This is an area that has been debated, scrutinised, consulted upon, and now we are at the process of looking at the detail. That is what the committee is doing, so I do not think that it would be appropriate to pause. It is now for this committee to do its work and Parliament to make a judgment about the detail of the bill and whether it supports it. Thank you for your response, cabinet secretary. I will go back to your predecessor in a minute. You have said that we have had such a lengthy consultation and people being heard. Why do you think that people out there—I am not the first in this committee, I think that people have been emailed and things have been voiced from people. Why do you think that they are voicing that they have not been heard? Certainly, I can tell you from my experience, it is a very tiring experience. Last week, having three sessions crammed in one week, and this week, two sessions. Certainly, it has been tiring for me, but I would also say that for those people who are listening and those people feeling that they have not been heard, what would you say to them, cabinet secretary, because this bill is now in stage 1? I have sat in committees that have taken lots and lots of evidence, and I guess that is the role and purpose of committees that we sit on and we look at that detail and we want to hear as many views as possible. I think that it is fair to say that there is a body of opinion, and this is a quite a polarised discussion. I am not going to pretend otherwise, of course it is, and we will have been contacted, as you have and I have, by people who are strongly in favour of the bill but people who are very strongly opposed. I think that one of the issues is that sometimes the reasons for people's opposition are actually not to do with the bill itself and the provisions of the bill, but we are wider concerns, some of which I am sure we will touch on today, some of which I try to outline in my opening remarks that this bill is not concerned with. I think that when it all boils down, we have to be guided by the evidence, and I think that the committee has heard some compelling evidence, some of the evidence that was led by the Scottish human rights commission last week. I think that it got into the nub of some of these issues about the evidence from countries that have adopted a statutory declaration process. The concerns that perhaps are expressed by people, emailing yourself or me, have not been found to come to fruition, so sometimes it is the concerns rather than the evidence that those countries have then found once they have those processes in place. I think that the Scottish human rights commission were quite clear that they could find no body of evidence that showed that some of those concerns about threat to women and girls or a major change in society, as we know, did not happen in those countries. I have no reason to believe that Scotland would be any different from that. It is important, though, that we do the annual reporting on the bill, and I know that the committee has taken some evidence about whether there should be a review, a post-legislative review, of the legislation to make sure that there is nothing that is emerging that perhaps we hadn't predicted. I am very sympathetic to that, and if the committee were to recommend that, that is something that I would give due consideration to, because I think that it is important that we look at the operation of any piece of legislation. Thank you. I am still on the same question. Is that okay? Thank you for that response, cabinet secretary. I am going back to you. You mentioned your predecessor. Obviously, she announced at the time that the cabinet secretary, sorry, announced a delay in June 2019 to take account of additional issues raised since the concentration and sought-to-build consensus on the way forward. Why, then, did the Scottish Government only agree to hold meetings with those who opposed the bill between January to March 2022 when it was arguably too late to influence policy? Just on top of that, sorry, just additional to that question, what are the points from that in the section of the bill, the concerns that were addressed, have you taken forward? I am aware that Shirley-Anne Somerville also undertook consultation and met with a number of organisations. He was closer to this, obviously, than I am, but, as I understand, what emerged from some of that were around the three-month reflection period, which was one of the areas that emerged from that. I can say more about that in a second. There has also been ample opportunity for written comments, all of which have been looked at and considered. I then personally undertook the round of engagement once I came in to post, and once I got my head around the expanse and the detail of what is a complex area, I undertook my own personal meetings with organisations from both sides of the argument around the bill. I looked at areas in a lot of detail. One, for example, was whether or not the age should be 18 or 16. I gave that a lot of consideration. I looked at all the views about it, and, as I said in my statement, it was finally balanced because of the differing views. The commitment to annual reporting came directly out of that round of engagement with organisations, because I was being asked how many GRCs have been issued, how we know if there has been a spike, how we know what the pattern is, and that was an absolutely fair point. We agreed to put in the annual reporting requirement. The other area that was changed was on cost, because some organisations in favour of the bill said that they thought that having a cost might be prohibitive to people, so we listened and removed cost on that basis. There are two examples that came directly out of that round of consultation. Peter's best place to talk about what happened before that, because I was not in post. I am just looking for the concerns at that time that were raised by those people and organisations. Are they addressed in the bill? It is good that the cabinet secretary mentioned age and a few others, but there are many others that were concerned that people are raising, so it is just on that that they have been put in the bill. I do not think that it is the case that Ms Sable will announce the delay to the bill, and then there were no meetings with officials. I do not think that that is the case. We have set out in our equality impact assessment the engagement that was gone through. Some of them made that announcement to lead into the second consultation, which was on the full draft bill. Both before that point and during that second consultation were some of those having meetings with interested parties. That set out in the equality impact assessment, so you can see the detail of that there. Obviously, after that second consultation, there was a delay and a period during which there were no meetings going on, and that was because Covid hit us and there was no work on this bill being taken forward at all. On the question of whether views of those parties were taken on board, the views expressed in those meetings and in the consultation responses were absolutely considered, but as the Cabinet Secretary has set out, the fundamental core of the bill did not change substantially. The Cabinet Secretary made changes to the bill based on those meetings that she had. Cabinet Secretary, we have heard a lot of evidence written and oral from people in favour and people opposed to the bill. A lot of the concerns of those who have been opposed to the bill have been debunked through those evidence sessions. Now that we are perhaps having those calls to delay the bill, as all else has been addressed, what would be the consequences of delaying the bill? We have been getting to this point for a long time. Any further delay is not going to necessarily enhance the public discourse around those issues. It has come to the point where, as legislators and parliamentarians, we need to make a decision about the bill. Given all the delays that are already being made, it would not be helpful. People who are deeply affected by the bill—I reiterate that it is a tiny number of people for whom the bill is really important—would have further delay in being able to bring their legal status and documentation into line with how they live their lives. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do. I have two more questions on single-sex bases and a bit to do with religion, please. The committee has heard concerns, and you have heard them as well. Following the system of self-declaration, we will open the bill up to abuse by bad faith actors to invade women's single-sex bases. What is your response to those concerns? Will you be considering provisions such as blocking those convicted of sex crimes from obtaining a GRC through self-declaration? If not, can you tell the committee what the bill does to address the concerns about the safety of women and girls from bad faith actors who may exploit the bill? The first thing that I would say is to point again to the evidence given by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, where it was very clear that there is no body of evidence—at least in the countries that have now got a system of statutory declaration—that points to bad faith actors trying to use the process in order to abuse women and girls. All of the evidence points that the abuse of women and girls comes from predatory men who have no evidence of them using a system of statutory declaration for gender recognition in order to abuse women and girls. There is no evidence of that. In terms of access to single-sex spaces, as I said in my opening remarks, if the Equality Act 2010 provides for exceptions, including for trans people with a gender recognition certificate, if those exceptions are proportionate, the example given under the Equality Act is a counselling service for rape victims. There could be an exception where transgender women would be excluded from that service. Other spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, which have had a lot of attention in the public domain, are areas that do not require a gender recognition certificate. The trans community, going about their daily lives as they have for or for ever, will or will not use those spaces and have done it. If that had been an issue, we probably would have been aware of it before the confines of the debate around the bill. Where single-sex spaces have a reason to exclude trans people for the reasons that I have outlined, that does not change under the bill at all, will remain the same. It is important that it does. 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, so basically going into Dr Surgery, which is an example that I have mentioned before, is going for a smear test. In the practice, you can ask for a female doctor. That is quite normal. My own mother does it and a lot of my relatives and friends. However, given that the individual with a GRC does not have to disclose that, there is a possibility that a woman could end up being seen by a biological male. I have been made aware of the issue and the concerns that people are having with the existing legislation. With the GRC reform, it could be more widespread. Are you aware of the issue existing before the bill and how you seek to address it? Given the balance that is very important to trans rights and the balance to religious rights, whether it is single-sex spaces or single-sex services that people especially from religious backgrounds require that service? Clearly, as you have alluded to, this is an issue that is not relating directly to the bill. It is about healthcare, whether it is now or after the bill. Let me say a couple of things about that. The NHS can give people their wishes if they want a man or a woman to care whether it is personal care that is delivered by a social care staff or whether it is a smear test or whatever procedure. If a patient specifically requests a doctor or nurse of the same gender for whatever reason, then the NHS will try to accommodate that as far as possible. Obviously, there is never any guarantees for that because of the availability of staff with appropriate skills to manage the patient's condition. For example, in social care, it can be quite difficult when a man requests male social care staff because it is a predominantly female workforce. Sometimes that can be difficult to grant those wishes. The patient's rights charter tries to set out the preferences, culture, beliefs, values and the level of understanding that they will be taken into account and respected when using NHS services. It sets out that people's wishes will be accommodated wherever possible. The Equality and Human Rights Commission also published statutory codes of practice and guidance to help employers to understand the relevant issues and deal with some of the issues that you raised. There is also the general occupation requirement exception, which can provide that a person appointed must not be a trans person where there is an occupational requirement due to the nature of the context of the work. There are a lot of safeguards that you could describe around that area. Finally, the evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission talked about a fair amount of case law about balancing religious rights with freedom from discrimination. That has predated the bill. On someone who does not disclose, again, I would have thought that that is something for the employer to deal with. We are talking about hypothetical situations here. I cannot imagine that most people, particularly in the caring professions, would want to do anything other than to have the person's wishes respected. That would be my view of that. Employers, guided by the guidance from the EHRC, have probably been dealing with those issues for many, many years, particularly the NHS, in making sure that people's wishes are respected as far as possible. We heard in a private session from an organisation that talked about that that would drive women, especially women from ethnic minority groups, more underground than the fact that they would not go into single sex spaces such as changing rooms and many other places. Do you believe that that would be the case if they could not have that single sex space to themselves, that that would drive them more underground? I welcome the fact that you have said that employers will have that and that they would have that in their employment contracts and guidance that the trans person that you could be sensed through religious places, sorry, religious grounds that if somebody wanted to go and see a doctor. I welcome that what you have said, but just on going back to my question, if you could answer that. I think that the Scottish Human Rights Commission again talked about this when you saw them last week and they said that there is no evidence of widespread self-exclusion from services or based on the international evidence of what has gone on in other countries and not dissimilar to our own position. I think that there is something about fear and concerns rather than perhaps actual threat, but that is important in itself because we don't want people to be concerned and worried. Therefore, I think that we all have a responsibility to be clear with people what the bill does, but more importantly what it doesn't do. All the protections that are already in place are not affected by this whatsoever. Going back to where the violence against women and girls emanates from, and it is from predatory men. There is no evidence that predatory men feel that they need to try to obtain a gender recognition certificate to be predatory and abusive. Of course, GRCs are not necessary to access areas such as toilets, changing rooms and other spaces that are not restricted as there would be for exceptions under the Equality Act. As I said earlier on, transwomen and transmen will have been using those spaces for many years. We would have had that being a concern and an issue. We would have heard about it before now. Having said that, as I said earlier, I am sympathetic to the annual reporting from post-legislation. However, if the committee feels that having a review to be able to take stock of all those issues is important and if that is a recommendation, that is something that I would look quite favourably upon. Very briefly, convener, I am just concerned about some of the language that has been used in relation to transwomen as biologically male has been used in the past as a transphobic dog whistle, so it is just to be aware of the language that we are using. Obviously, we are going to have a high volume of trans people who are interested in what is going on at the committee today. I am trying very hard not to police language unless it is directed at an individual, but your point is made. Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and to your officials. This gets to the heart of human rights and is ultimately about the human rights of trans people. Of course, trans people's rights are human rights, not because they are trans, but because they are human. We have heard in a lot of the evidence sessions about the importance of human rights and everyone's human rights that is involved. I am deeply disappointed in the public discourse around that particular debate, where trans people have been able to see opening papers, watching the news and seeing their rights be debated, and, of course, where women have also experienced the same. Human rights are inalienable, not debatable. My first question, cabinet secretary, is to ask—first of all, to say that I believe that a lot of that is to do with the vacuum between 2017 and 2019 that was left by the Government, and I am disappointed that that vacuum was left. Can you set out what the Government can do to sort this mess? Let me first agree that human rights are human rights. What we are trying to achieve here is recognising that—again, this was put across strongly by the Scottish Human Rights Commission—that everybody's human rights are all important collectively and should not be seen as somehow in opposition to one another, and I think that that is important. In terms of the public discourse, we have already had a discussion this morning about there should have been more time. I take your point that you feel there has been too much time, and I think that we have probably landed in the middle of—I think that it has been well discussed, it has been well consulted upon, and I think that we have now got to the position where we are able to look at the detailed make decisions. In terms of the public discourse, it is very difficult to change what is on social media and in some sections of mainstream media as well. In some places, it has become perhaps a bit of a wedge issue against a tiny number of people who are extremely vulnerable and really just want to get on with their lives, which is why this bill is important. In terms of the public discourse I think that once the legislation is in place and people see that the people it affects are the tiny number of people who directly affect i.e. those who are going to obtain a gender recognition certificate that can then reflect how they have been living their lives anyway. When you see those other countries growing in number, I have cited Spain looking at it as well, that the actual practice and operation of this, none of the concerns that were expressed in those countries have come to fruition. I think that that should give us some confidence that people will perhaps be assured by that. Finally, as I said in my earlier remarks, I am not sure that the social media reflects where public opinion is on this matter. I mentioned the BBC poll, which showed that young people and young people overwhelmingly are more supportive of trans community and all of the polls that are done, but also women were more supportive. I thought that that was perhaps food for thought. Some of the polling that has been done shows a different view than social media would have as belief. We will continue to do that. If there are other things that we can do to improve the public discourse as a Government, we will, and if there are any suggestions from the committee in that regard, then I am happy to look at those. Thank you for that answer, cabinet secretary. Can you set out what changes you have made and what equalities analysis you have done since the equality impact assessment in 2017 to 2019? We have heard some concerns that there have not been many changes. I can do that. The impact assessment sets out all of the organisations that were met with, all of the evidence that was looked at. As I said earlier on, we have reflected on that. After coming into post and having the meetings looking at the evidence, I had some key decisions to make, one of which was age. I looked at that in a lot of detail. On the basis of the evidence on looking at things such as the age of legal responsibility in Scotland and the evidence given by young trans people, in particular, that 16 was the appropriate age. The annual reporting and the costs have been raised during those discussions. The central premise of the bill has remained the same. We do not believe in the medical model, so it is a demedicalised model of statutory declaration that is simplified and is very similar to that taken forward in other countries. We have not really moved from that central premise, because that is the central premise of the bill. However, what we have done is listened to some of the areas that I have set out in terms of age, cost and reporting. On the consideration of equality issues since 2019, it is worth explaining that that process of developing the impact assessments was an ongoing process that did not finish in 2019. We have gone through an unusually detailed and robust process around the impact assessments, which is that in the first 2017 consultation, we set out the general principles of that process. In the 2019 consultation, we have published a full draft impact assessment, and since then, we have continued considering those issues. We have updated the impact assessments, but it has all been part of a continuous process, I guess, is the point that I want to make. Thank you for both your answers. In the bill that sets out that there will be regulations on the form and information on what the Registrar General will be able to collect, and you have already touched on that. I will come back to the issue of young people in a moment, if the convener allows. However, on the regulations for the Registrar General, would you be prepared to publish the regulations ahead of the bill being finished at stage 2? Sorry, the point of those regulations, I think, is to allow scope for things to be tweaked, even after the bill is finished, just in terms of the detailed operation of the process. I do not think that all that unusual, as the Registrar General said, when he was giving evidence here, he has all sorts of powers in terms of tweaks that he can make through secondary legislation, so that is the type of thing. We do not currently have specific things that we anticipate that there would be regulations made around, but, as I said earlier, it would not be the fundamental basis on which GRCs are being issued. My further question about the Registrar General touches on the issue of age, as well. The Registrar General and the Commissioner for Children and Young People spoke of the need for support. The Registrar General said that there had been conversations with the cabinet secretary on the sort of support and organisations that would provide that to people, so that they could understand the effect of a gender recognition certificate. Can you set out, cabinet secretary, what those conversations have been, who you think those organisations might be? I know that you have mentioned that it could be approximately £350,000 to set that up and then £150,000 on-going. For some support, that could be considered quite small, so can you set out the detail that you have gone into on that and the role that young people will have in developing some of those supports and guidance? I know that the Children's Commissioner was quite clear that they thought that young people should be involved in the development of the guidance. I think that there is some merit in that to make sure that it is clear and straightforward. The Registrar General will have a particular role in making sure that people understand what is in the guidance that they can offer face-to-face meetings. Where there perhaps is a role for other organisations, rather than the Registrar General, is where it is more about further support if a young person is needing support beyond just understanding the process. That is where other organisations could have an important role and that the Registrar General would signpost those. What I would envisage is that, with the development of the guidance, there will be organisations that would be part of that signposting. In terms of the money, the bill sets out what we think the operating costs of the Registrar General will be. However, the door is not closed if it is shown that there needs to be further resources, either for the Registrar General or for other organisations that are going to support 16-17-year-olds in helping to work their way through the process. I think that there is lots of scope for the development of that guidance involving young people. I am happy to keep the committee informed about the progress of that if that would be helpful. I think that that would be helpful. The commissioners spoke about the presumption in the children's bill that children have capacity to share their views on young people of capacity. With the court, would you suggest that something similar could be helpful in that bill? Explain that to me again. In the children's bill, there is an assumption that a young person has the capacity to make a decision unless someone else, on a case-by-case basis and unless a professional says otherwise, would you consider that that would be a useful addition to the bill to protect? That is assumed due to the age of legal capacity establishing that young people from 16 upwards have the ability to enter into legal contracts. I know that there are various ages for various things. I understand all of that. The fact that we have agreed that, from 16 years onwards, young people are able to make those decisions for themselves and have the legal capacity. There are issues for the registrar general around capacity more generally, not just young people. However, if anyone is concerned about whether they have capacity or are being coerced in any way, clearly they are able to take steps in terms of the sheriff's court, etc. However, for young people, we think that it is very much in line with the age of legal capacity, and therefore consistent with that. I move on to a slightly different area. We have also heard from people who have transitioned and transitioned again, sometimes called de-transitioning, and there is a lack of clarity of process to do that within the bill. Could you set out what you understand, cabinet secretary, to be the process for people who have transitioned and then decide, perhaps, to transition again? Could you also set out for us how you would protect those people from a criminal process on the basis of how you would tell the difference between a false declaration and somebody seeking to transition again? Essentially, the simplest and best way in those circumstances is that they would take the same approach and submit an application under the same process. The offence is about knowingly making a false statutory declaration. If at the time of making a statutory declaration you intended to live permanently in your required gender, you would not be committing an offence if your intention to do so subsequently changed at some point in your life for whatever reason. You could draw a comparison on marriage, which involves a lifelong commitment and intention at the time, but sometimes that relationship comes to an end and does not make the marriage itself false. It is just that someone has reached a different point in their life. That is the simplest way, which would enable someone who has a change of view at some point in their life to be able to use that process. That does not happen very often. The evidence from other countries is that a very small number of people do that, so there are not lots of people, but a very small number of people. I just wanted to add a tiny detail. Under the bill, if you wanted to reverse the process, you would just apply a game. That is exactly how it works at the moment in terms of the current gender recognition process that you would apply and go through the same process. Obviously, currently, that is a two-year period in which you have to provide medical evidence. Our understanding is that providing medical evidence for reversing the decision is a significant barrier, so it should be much easier under the bill. Thank you. That is really helpful. The other area that I am interested in— I suggest that I would like to cover those two areas. I think that there are other people who want to come in and know that. Is that okay? We will come back to you after. Yes, I have some other questions. That is fine. We are going to have a comfort break in a little while, but if any members have supplementary questions around the point in terms of transitioning, detransitioning, retransitioning or young people, I think that Karin, where you want to go. In regards to lowering the minimum age to obtain a GRC, other countries have a lower age limit and some with no age limit at all. Can I ask how the process for the policy came about to settle on age 16? As I have alluded to earlier in the session, that was probably the area that I gave most consideration to, because it is a significant step moving away from the current process of 18 to 16. We looked at the international comparisons and some are 16, some are 18, some require additional measures for 16-17 years, some do not. We had a range of international examples to look at. We brought it back to two other things. One is what in the Scottish legal context, what else have we done in Scotland in terms of other legal responsibilities. The age of legal capacity Scotland in 1991 was really important, because it gives legal capacity to 16 to 17-year-olds to enter into any transaction having legal effect. For me, that was an important area of the law that essentially fits quite well with that ability to make that statutory declaration. Finally, it was the evidence of young trans people themselves who were saying that they are at a pivotal point in their life at 16-17, when they were about to enter college, university and the world of work. They wanted to be able to do that in a way that aligned with how they were living their life and to have their documentation all aligned rather than differing documentation. I thought that that was quite a powerful argument, so taking in the round, that was why I made that decision. Thank you, convener. There were just three points to pick up on supplementals to Pam Gothel's questions. I just wanted to ask you, cabinet secretary, why the Scottish Government Bill team meeting with the committee, that first meeting on 15 March, wasn't fully minuted? You probably cannot answer that just now. When you say that we have had plenty of time to scrutinise the bill, that on 17 May, less than 12 hours after the deadline for written submissions on the midnight 16 May, with 10,800 short submissions were given, you believe that the committee have had the ability to scrutinise it. We have, looking at the passage of bills within the committee, had the most evidence sessions and probably the most private sessions within it. To Karen's question, my question would be what would be the consequence of not delaying the bill. Lastly, the point that you make about the impact on single spaces. We heard evidence from Senator Regina Docherty, who says that two women identified as men after they had been arrested and charged and housed in women's prisons in Limerick. I wanted to ask you whether you were sympathetic to the concerns of vulnerable women housed in prison. Before you respond, there was a point that was more for me, rather than for you. Obviously, right at the start, the committee agreed to hear from the bill team in private sessions. As an introduction to the bill, that was the decision that the committee took at that time that was unanimous. Obviously, Ms Hamilton was not a member of the committee at the time, but as is the correct procedure with the Parliament, a minute is not taken of private sessions. However, a note of that session was published. I just don't think that that was really fair. I've put that to the cabinet secretary because it was really for us as a committee. We took a decision, albeit prior, to your attendance. I was going to say that the issues of meetings and how they were recorded and how the committee managed its business are not matters for me. In terms of prisons, I think that the committee received some very detailed evidence from the Scottish Prison Service. Obviously, our prison service, in the way that we manage prisoners, trans prisoners or anyone else, is for the Scottish Prison Service. I can't really comment on another country's prison service, but what I do know is that the Scottish Prison Service is already making decisions about how to manage trans prisoners, along absolutely on the basis of the risk assessment of that person, both in terms of the risk to themselves or the risk to others. It's already the case that trans women may be held in the male estate or the female estate, depending on that risk assessment. For example, 75 per cent of trans men are held in the female estate, with a recognition that the risk to themselves has been deemed to be a factor there. They do that already, so that's the current process, and that will continue after the bill. They also have a review on going where they are looking at their gender identity policy and looking at whether any further changes need to be made. They are looking at evidence gathered from their own prison population, service users or stakeholders, and they are looking to publish an updated policy thereafter, once they have gone through that process. I think that it would be useful if we get a site of what the risk assessment that you are talking about is, because in Ireland they are basically not turned back to anyone who is supplied for a GRC. Therefore, those individuals were given a GRC, and obviously there was a risk because they were violent people, but they still got into the women's prison. Let me be very clear—the Scottish Prison Service has been very clear—that whether or not someone has a gender recognition certificate is not the issue here. They could have a gender recognition certificate and still be placed in the estate that is not in line with their acquired gender if that is the risk that is assessed. Prison Service could not be clearer about that. They are already operating that policy and have done it for some time. Is that because you believe that a GRC changes a person's sex for the purpose of section 11 of the Equality Act? People have been able to change their sex through the 2004 act since then, so they have already been able to do that. Any prisoners that we are talking about have already done that through the 2004 act, because the bill is not in place. Any people that we are talking about here, whether they have a GRC, will have one through the existing 2004 legislation. The point that I am making is that the Scottish Prison Service does not give—it is not a pass—so you have a GRC, it is not a pass for a trans woman in the female estate or for a trans man in the male estate. What matters is the risk assessment of that individual, not just whether they pose a threat to other people but whether they are at risk themselves. Clearly, you could see, particularly in the case of trans men, why that might be the case, which is why 75 per cent of trans men are held in the female estate. How many is that? There are 16 transgender people in custody across the whole estate at the moment. The last point about the 12 hours between the written submission and the bill being brought forward in front of the committee, it was quite a short time to be able to digest 10,800 submissions to make a decision on who we bring forward for witnesses. That is surely a matter for the committee. It is not a matter for me. How the committee operates its business in the time that you allocate for this bill is really for yourselves, not for me. I have made my views clear that the process, the consultations, the bill and all that has gone around scrutinising the bill before it even reached its committee. I think that we know what the issues are. I think that everybody has had a chance to give their view. I do not think that there would be any major changes or benefit from delaying any further. I think that we really need to get on with this and that would be my view. All of that is matters that the committee can discuss in drafting our stage 1 report. On that basis, I am going to suspend proceedings now for 10 minutes for a comfort break and we will reconvene at 25 to 12. We will now reconvene the session with a question from Fulton MacGregor, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and your officials. I have a few areas that I want to ask some questions on, but first I would like to comment on some of the commentary at the end of the session before the break. That was around the scrutiny of this bill and I want to put it on record because I do not think that it has been so yet, particularly not in a session, my thanks to the cleric and team here, who have done an absolutely fantastic job of making sure that we have been able to scrutinise this bill to the level and impact that we have. Relating back to some other members' lines of questioning, it is going to be down to each member if they feel that they have had enough information in relation to making a decision for stage 1. That is an individual thing, but I certainly feel—and I can only speak for myself—that we have had ample information to hear from a wide range of sources about what that bill does and what it does not do. I felt that it was important that that was put on the record so that there is not just one side of that commentary. However, as the cabinet secretary has already said, those are decisions for the committee, so I do not expect her to comment on that. The areas that I was going to ask about, cabinet secretary, I will start with the provision that is in the bill to live in the acquired gender, as it is called, for three months now. I know that you will be aware of all the committee sessions, and you will probably be aware that I have been asking on this line, so I will not probably be any surprised to you that I am asking again. We have heard concerns across the board about this. There is not really any justification for where the three months have come from. I wonder if you could talk about that in what would be your response to those concerns. Where did the three months come from and why was that particular timeframe reached? Have you got any thoughts getting into stage 2? Obviously, you will wait on our report, but have you got any thoughts getting into stage 2 if there are any thoughts from the Government about removing that particular part of the bill? As you will know, applicants are required to provide evidence that they have been living in their acquired gender for a period of two years before applying, which we think is unnecessarily long. We have heard a range of views from stakeholders and respondents to the consultation. Some feel that there is no need for it for any period of time. Others are more anxious that there should be longer, so it is about trying to balance. The three-month period of living in the acquired gender represents our view of what we think is balanced and proportionate, providing assurance that the applicant has already been living in the acquired gender for a period of time before applying without, on the other hand, imposing lengthy barriers. I know that the committee has heard from witnesses that applying for legal gender recognition is often at the end of a process whereby they have made other changes, perhaps to documentation such as passports and driving licences. In the round, it helps to demonstrate the applicant's commitment to living the acquired gender for the rest of their lives. It is important to note that, where an applicant has already been living in their acquired gender for at least three months, they might have been living in their acquired gender for many years and that they can affirm that in their statutory declaration. Therefore, they would not impose a delay on their application. Essentially, they would affirm that they had been living in their acquired gender for a period of longer than three months and longer. I hope that that gives some reassurance that there would not be any undue delay. I think that it does, but I think that it is quite surprising, as you have already talked, Cabinet Secretary, about the heated nature of the debate. Perhaps I was surprised to myself, maybe not to other members, that there was quite a lot of consensus over this part of the bill regardless of what side of the debate people were on. It felt that, in essence, there wasn't any need for the three months. I do appreciate that response, but I wonder if, going back to the last part of my first question, if the Government is open to reviewing and looking at that going into the further stages of the bill. I have set out why that provides a balanced and proportionate response to concerns that we would be going from a period of two years to potentially no time at all. We felt three months was a period of time that is not unduly onerous. For many people who have been living in their acquired gender for quite some time, they will be able to affirm that, so there would not be a further delay for those people. I will reflect on any recommendations that the committee makes, but I feel that it is important to keep a balance within the bill. We have heard the range of views on that as well, but I would be very wary of describing that this is a consensus on the issue. I think that our conclusion is that simply removing that period of living in the acquired gender would absolutely not be welcomed by a significant number of stakeholders. On that same provision, there have been concerns raised about the language that is used in the bill. You will be aware of that as well. We have heard quite a robust concern about that. Do you have any thoughts on those concerns? Have you heard any thoughts on the use of the language? We did heed as well to be fair a couple of times, particularly from academics, who said that they were concerned about the use of the language. However, you have to call it something for that part of the bill. I think that the committee is taking that on board as well, but I wonder what your thoughts were at this stage. I understand the concerns, and I understand how important language is. The language is used in the 2004 act, and other existing legislation to describe legally changing your gender. We have used that language in part to ensure that the provisions being inserted into the 2004 act work with the rest of the act without the need to change references to the acquired gender and provisions that are not being amended, because that would be a lot more complicated. We will look at the recommendations that are made by the committee, but I think that for the purposes of legal clarity and understanding, it is appropriate to use language that is consistent with existing legislation. I am also not clear as the academics that you refer to what alternative language could be used to accurately describe legally changing your gender. What is important to say is that we do not generally use acquired gender more widely to describe the experience of trans people generally, and we would ensure that guidance and descriptions around the process use the language that is clear, respectful and inclusive. I was going to move on to the three months reflection period, but I do not know if colleagues were wondering on that. A trans woman raised the definition of an acquired gender and put the question back to the women in the committee and said what traits you demonstrate that confirms that you are living as a woman. I wondered for the purposes of the bill if we are to reform it and make legislation better. Does the Scottish Government consider that there should be a definition of what it is to acquire gender? Living in the acquired gender generally means living your daily life in a gender that is different from your gender recorded at birth. In the context of the bill, that is the gender that you are living in when you make an application. What is important to recognise is that living in the acquired gender is an existing requirement under the 2004 act, and I do not think that it causes widespread confusion among applicants currently, so we do not envisage it with the bill. The requirement is not about dressing or looking at a certain way, but it is about the ways that a person may demonstrate that they are a lived gender to others. Ultimately, interpretation is about consistently using titles and pronouns in line with the acquired gender, updating official documents such as a driving licence or passport, updating utility bills or bank accounts, updating the gender marker on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication in line with the acquired gender, using a name associated with the acquired gender, although change of name is of course a personal choice and not acquired, but it is an example. The gender recognition panel, as currently exists obviously, would not be so after this bill. It does advise in their guidance for applicants that this may include, for example, having changed the gender marker on your passport and driving licence, or that your friends, family and employer know your gender. I hope that that makes that decision as to whether all those things are being done if you do not have to give any paperwork. We will work with National Records of Scotland to provide guidance to applicants on the application process. NRS will look at how they can confirm some of the aspects of documentation if required. It is a statutory declaration process, but if NRS has any concerns, they are able to use various methods to check documentation if they felt that that was required. Peter, I do not know if you have any to add to that. The individual affirms it through the statutory declaration, but there is a process through the sheriff court to challenge or withdraw where there are concerns about either a fraudulent application or about understanding of the effect of an application. I think that this is a bigger supplemental than I envisaged, but I am at this challenge through the courts. Would that be through a family member or something? Is that what you are saying? That would be laid out in the bill in terms of who is able to challenge. It is a spouse or a child. In the bill, it sets out that a person with a genuine interest can make an application to the sheriff. It would be for the sheriff to ultimately decide who that would be and how that would be defined, but the explanatory notes give the examples of the registrar general, certainly a spouse, civil partner or child. Those are just examples. I appreciate that. I am moving on to the similar provision, which is the three-month reflection period, which I know that you have already spoken about. I think that that came out of the further consultation that you have done. Again, we have heard quite a lot of evidence from people that this reflection period is not necessary, because it is likely that trans people have been living in the required gender to use the language, as previously discussed for most of their lives. I have been reflecting on it for some time, and we have heard evidence saying that perhaps it was not enough time. I guess that you will say that the three-month period is again to balance that out. I wonder if you can speak a bit more about that, and what the Government's justification was for the reflection period, and it has specifically been three months? As you say, there are various views about that. We have heard the view from stakeholders and respondents to the consultation who may not support the proposal, but for different reasons that a person has already reflected on in their entire life, or that the period reflection is too short or not required if the applicant was required to live in the required gender for a longer period before applying. I do not think that there is much consensus on that issue. The reflection period, in our opinion, represents a balanced and proportionate response before taking what is an important and life-changing decision. It provides additional assurance that applicants have considered carefully what they are doing and are making a serious and lifelong choice. The bill does not require applicants to reconfirm the facts and circumstances that are set out in their application, simply to affirm that they wish to proceed. Some countries have reflection periods, some do not, the ones that do most notably Denmark and Belgium. As I said earlier, we will look at the recommendations of the committee, but it is important that we try to balance the range of concerns as far as we can. I think that the three-month reflection period could be helpful to ensure that people are absolutely sure that that is what they want to do. Perhaps it is either yourself or somebody else in the committee who correct me, but I do think that Denmark is considering removing their reflection period, but as I said, I could stand open to correction on that. On the reflection period again, I hope that I am not standing in any colleagues' toes here because it does go into the age issue as well. We did hear some evidence from some stakeholders and panellists who suggested that there might not be as big a debate around a reflection period over the age of 18, but perhaps if we are lowering it to between 16 and 18, there should be a reflection period taking people from whatever age they are to over 18, and that should be the reflection period. We did hear that on at least one specific panel, I cannot remember. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that or what we heard. If there should be a reflection period for the 16 to 18-year-old group that is different from the rest of the population? For consistency and fairness, I think that the reflection period should be the same. I think that the evidence from the Children's Commissioner was probably against having a reflection period at all, but I think that they would be quite firmly against having a differential reflection period. If we are agreed and go forward with 16 to 17-year-olds being able to obtain a gender recognition certificate through statutory declaration, they should be treated with the maturity that everyone else is treated with in terms of the reflection period, having said that there is obviously going to be the additional guidance and support structure around 16 to 17-year-olds, which we think is the more appropriate additional support that perhaps someone may or may not require over the age of 18. One area that we are mindful of is for those circumstances where someone is nearing the end of life and where, frankly, three months could be a long time, and the importance for many people of having their death certificate reflect how they have lived their life. I am very sympathetic to that and very mindful of that. Again, if the committee were making a recommendation in that regard, I would be really sympathetic to that. On the differential reflection period for young people, I think that it was the Church of Scotland that specifically made that recommendation. Any such approach would have to be justified quite carefully in terms of putting differential barriers to accessing rights. In practice, it would work quite similarly to the current process. Currently, there is an 18-year minimum age for getting a GRC, but the process of collecting evidence can take two years. Applicants can start that prior to it, so they can start collecting evidence from 16 but not actually get their GRC until 18. The proposal would similarly restrict people getting that GRC until they were 18. Again, we have heard from a number of organisations and trans people that there are particular concerns for young people around getting their documentation right before going off to university or starting jobs or what have you and preventing them from doing that until they are 18, I think, would be unfortunate. Thanks very much, cabinet secretary, and Peter for those responses. It goes without saying that when we are asking questions in particular in relation to that, it does not necessarily reflect my views as an individual. When we hear concerns, it is important that we put them to the Government going forward. I was going to move on to my final area of questioning, which is ordinarily resident, but again, if there are some days that want to come in on the three months reflection period, perhaps it is now the best time. I think that if you want, well, as there are others who want to come in on that. No, I think that you yourself and I think that Pam wants to come in on the ordinarily resident as well, so if you start then we will go to Pam and then we will move to the next. Okay, thanks. Cabinet secretary, on the ordinarily resident, I should obviously say that the bill provides only those born in Scotland or ordinarily resident. Scotland may apply for a GRC, but we have heard some concerns that might lead to people from the rest of the UK travelling to Scotland to apply for a GRC. Do you think that those concerns are founded? Is there any international evidence that would back up or dismiss those concerns? I had initially hoped that, given the similar border situation that the Irish example might have shed some light in that last week, but I think that once the senator explained or pointed out the current differences here, it perhaps was not the best example, but I wonder if the Government has got any other examples. The requirement in the bill is for the applicant to be the subject of a Scottish birth or adoption register entry or, as you said, ordinarily resident in Scotland and applicants will have to make a statutory declaration to that effect. Ordinarily resident, as I'm sure you know, means that you live in Scotland with only short periods away and the residents must be voluntary for settled purposes and lawful. It's a common law concept that's routinely used in statutes, so it's not particular to this bill. It's understood in many statutes. It's also worth reiterating that, if someone knowingly makes a false statutory declaration that they are ordinarily resident in Scotland, then they could be committing a criminal offence. We, again, will work with the National Records of Scotland to provide guidance to applicants to make sure that they fully understand that. I noted the evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and they said that what I would say about cross-border impacts is that it takes us back to what a GRC does and does not do, because someone has the same protection under the gender reassignment characteristic, whether or not they have a GRC. If they go from Scotland to England, they will have the same protections in relation to their gender reassignment in school, in work and in medical contexts, whether or not they have a GRC. I don't foresee an issue—I think that tourism was the word you used—for all of those reasons. I don't foresee that being an issue. Given that other people are not in here, I am happy to leave for that. Pam, you are looking to come in on this. Just following that line of questioning, we heard from a number of witnesses, including just right Scotland, that there might have been concerns for people who reside in Scotland but are not citizens of Scotland. Is it your intention that the bill will cover those people? I know that concerns have been expressed about whether asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland would meet the requirement to be ordinarily resident and therefore eligible to apply. I am sympathetic to those concerns. As you know, asylum and immigration are matters reserved to the UK Parliament and handled by the Home Office. Whereas we have responsibility for things such as access to essential services such as healthcare and education that enable integration, that is an area that rubs up against, devolved and reserved matters. Obviously, refugees are in a bit of a different situation in terms of their rights compared to asylum seekers. There would be potential competence issues with the bill legislating for asylum seekers specifically and getting access to gender recognition as well as practical issues that would need further consideration. Peter, I do not know if there is anything in terms of that further consideration. No, not particularly. We are sympathetic to those concerns but definitely would need to consider the competence issues quite carefully. Again, Colin, I do not know if you want to say anything specific. No, that is fine. Thank you. I have some other questions in other areas. Do you want to come back to me? Yes, I think that if I can go to a couple of other members who have not had their substantive question yet and we will come back. There is plenty of time. Rachael Hamilton. Again, this is a supplemental that I had indicated that I would be asking convener on the cross-border effect. I just wondered why has the EHRC said that there are implications for potential divergence within the Equality Act on services? You mentioned a number of them there but in terms of cross-border employment, education service provision and on single-sex exemptions. EHRC has raised a number of issues in relation to their position on the bill. It has changed and in relation to a number of other matters. We have had quite a significant amount of correspondence back to the EHRC to try to understand what the nub of their concerns are. I am mindful that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has likewise had quite an extensive series of correspondence with the EHRC trying to understand the basis, the evidential basis, the legal basis for some of the concerns that they have raised and are continuing to do so as are we to try to understand what lies behind those particular concerns. Peter, I do not know if you want to come on the specifics. Sure. Specifically in relation to that concern about differential operation of the Equality Act, the Cabinet Secretary has recently written back to the EHRC last night. On that specific point, it is really not clear what their concern is given that the Equality Act is obviously UK-wide legislation. It is not framed around possession of a GRC or not. Therefore, it is not immediately clear why changing the process for obtaining a GRC would change how the Equality Act operated so that it would be helpful for the EHRC to explain that more. That is still to be looked at and delved into a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? I think that we just need to understand what their concern is, because the rights of transgender people across the UK are enshrined within the Equality Act 2010, whether or not someone has a GRC. The fact that we are changing the process for obtaining a GRC does nothing to alter those fundamental rights enshrined in the Equality Act. We do not understand what the relevance is, because those rights exist no matter what process for obtaining a GRC a country has. We do not understand what the relevance is. Do you have another opinion on the fact that there will be different systems in that legal gender recognition? The different systems are just the process for obtaining the GRC. The fundamental rights protecting transgender people, which are reserved under the Equality Act, remain the same. They will be the same the day before the bill and the day after it becomes legislation if it does, as I hope it will. There is no change to any of those provisions in the Equality Act 2010. That is why we have written back asking for clarification about what that means, because we do not understand what it means. If you do not get clarification and understanding of that, before you want to go forward to stage 1 or we create a report at stage 1, what happens at that point? Is it relevant? No, I do not think that it is, because the rights are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, so they would have to change the Equality Act 2010. I would assume that what would be the basis of changing the transgender protections under the Equality Act 2010 for one part of the UK would probably not have a legal basis for a start to do so. Everybody has the same protections across the UK enshrined in that act, whether or not they have a GRC. That is not going to change. What we are trying to get clarification on is what they think the relevance to the bill is. We do not believe that there is any. I think that that view is shared by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It is not the only thing that we have not been able to get clarification from the GRC on. We have asked them for clarification on a number of things that do not seem to have particular relevance to the bill, so we will wait with interest to see what comes back. We will go to the expert. It is probably for the record that we are just flagging to anyone watching that we did have a session with the EHRC, so if we want to go back and a lot of these points were put to them, they can look at the recording on Parliament TV and make their decision for themselves. To Rachael Kerr, of course. Thanks, convener, although the go-between between the Cabinet Secretary and the EHRC is developing in that sense, we need to keep up-to-date with that. I just wondered in terms of the data gathering. We have heard a lot. We heard from Professor Alice O'Sullivan, who believes that data gathering is important so that we ensure that services are provided as such. We heard from Senator Regina Doherty, who said a similar thing. I just wondered whether you agreed with the guidance to public bodies from the chief statistician of Scotland, which advises only collecting data on biological sex in a small number of instances, which makes it impossible to monitor the impacts on women. How do you see that being addressed? As you say, in 2021, the chief statistician published guidance for public bodies on the collection of data on sex and gender and is continuing to engage with a range of public bodies to support their application of the guidance. There has been a particular focus on the recording of crime statistics, for example. As you know, crime recording for operational purposes is a matter for the respective body, be it Police Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal, the Crown Office or the courts. It is worth noting that we publish national statistics on criminal proceedings in Scotland every year, which are derived from data that is held on the criminal history system, which is an operational database maintained by Police Scotland. There are such small numbers involved here that the view is that there is not going to be a statistical impact from any changes that this bill will introduce. I would come in on a specific thing. I do not think that it is accurate to say that Senator Regina Doherty was saying the same kind of thing as Professor Alice Sullivan. I would agree with that, but it was just two different views on data collection. I clarify that Senator Doherty was very clear that she thought that the introduction of their gender recognition system in Ireland had had very little impact on data collection. Her specific concerns were around the kind of quality and nuance of the data that they were collecting through their census and accurately affecting trans people's lives. I think that they were very different in terms of her concerns from what was being said by Professor Alice Sullivan. I just wondered—we have heard quite a lot about collecting data for the purpose of the gender pay gap. I wondered whether you thought that perhaps there would be a concern if there was not accurate data collection that it could affect women's participation and representation in public life. I do not think that there is evidence to support that. I think that closed the gap had also provided evidence that I do not think that there is support for that concern. The numbers are so small that I do not think that there would have a statistical impact. The gender pay gap and the work that is going on through closed gap and the work on fair pay that the Scottish Government is leading is—I do not think that the bill is going to have any impact on that at all or on public life, because the number of people that we are talking about are so small. This is only my fourth or fifth session. Had the Scottish Government done any work on that analysis, whether there had been an impact on services, resources and impact on participation for women in public life? In countries that have already done this? No, in this country there is just any analysis of how, obviously, there are a lot more people accessing the services of gender clinics and we know that the numbers of people wanting to transition has been increasing. Has the Scottish Government done any work on that potential impact? I am happy to talk about gender identity healthcare, which is a whole area in itself. Obviously, those are matters that are not to do specifically with obtaining a GRC under the bill. We do not believe that there is any evidence of any impact where statutory declaration has been introduced in any other country. That is really where we would look to in terms of any impact. In terms of the numbers going through gender identity healthcare, they are very small in numbers again, but I am not related to the bill because someone does not require a GRC to undertake gender identity healthcare. We are aware of the pressures on those services and the further investment that the Cabinet Secretary for Health has made in order to try to improve that, but the two things are really not related. Someone can access that healthcare without ever applying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. Similarly, someone could apply for a gender recognition certificate under the statutory declaration process without ever going anywhere near gender identity healthcare. That comes back to one of the earlier points. The two things are really quite different and need to be treated. We have had witnesses who have expressed their disappointment for non-binary recognition, not being in this bill. We have also heard from somebody who transitioned and then transitioned again because they felt that perhaps non-binary was more suitable to them and how they felt and identified. I understand that the Scottish Government has set up a non-binary working group, so I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about the work that has been on-going there. Could you see a possibility of legal gender recognition for non-binary people in the future? The first consultation on the gender recognition reform discussed the legal gender recognition of non-binary people and the extent to which that would require significant changes to devolved areas of law, such as parentage, marriage, registration law and reserved areas, such as the Equality Act 2010, as well as financial and administrative resources to implement, so very complex indeed. Making such changes would require much further consideration and consultation if that was the direction of travel. We decided not to extend legal gender recognition to non-binary people in the bill. You quite rightly have pointed to the working group on non-binary equality, which was established and has recently made its recommendations to the Scottish Government, which we are considering. We will be responding and the report will be published in short order in the near future in the next couple of weeks. Thank you, convener. I have a few questions in various areas, so I will be as quick and succinct as I can be. Thank you for your patience with that. The British Psychological Society said that medical pathways are not contingent on the GRA. However, we have heard various concerns about health services for trans people, both in general in terms of healthcare, but also about their transition specifically, including that there are in some areas of Scotland four years waiting times, that there could be fees charged by GPs, and then, of course, there are the real poor health and mental health outcomes of trans people. Are you in a position, cabinet secretary, to commit to reviewing the health services for trans people? What can you do to ensure that, should they wish to access them, trans people can get timely access to gender identity and support services? As I alluded to earlier on, applying for and receiving a gender recognition certificate and clinical decisions about gender identity healthcare are entirely separate. We recognise that referrals and waiting times for gender identity services for both adults and young people have increased over recent years, and that is why action has been taken already. The NHS Gender Identity Services Strategic Action Framework, which was published in December last year, demonstrates a commitment to want to improve matters. I think that there was a £9 million investment of a remember rightly in order to try and make those improvements. We do recognise that it was a £9 million investment over three years with £2 million allocated for this year to try and improve things. There is a reference group that has been established to lead on co-ordinating the work. It will take a bit of time, but we acknowledge that the waiting times for support are not where we would want them to be and that is why that investment has been made. I appreciate the answer, cabinet secretary. I understand the difference and the implications of the bill on health services. I just felt that we have heard in a number of sessions about the experience of trans people in the round and I just thought that it would be helpful and remiss of us not to, as a committee, to put that to you, cabinet secretary. There are a couple of reporting mechanisms in the legislation. I know that the reporting mechanisms that are outlined for the register general are considerably shorter and more restricted than that that is collected elsewhere in the UK, for example, by the Ministry of Justice. Would the cabinet secretary be open to looking at further reporting mechanisms and data collection, including on people's date of birth status, etc., for the purposes of having a clearer picture of people across Scotland, including the number of trans people in Scotland? Are you talking about what the NRS would gather, or are you talking about what we might gather in terms of annual reporting? Probably both, but specifically the annual reporting. My next question will be on the annual reporting and whether or not you would be prepared to commit to a post-legislative review and whether you would be prepared to consider, in a short period of time, the impact of including or not including non-binary gender recognition within at least perhaps a period of a year after the bill. The whole area of annual reporting was driven initially by concerns that we responded to about being able to track and monitor the numbers of GRCs being issued. That was the starting point, but I am certainly open-minded about whether or not annual reporting would go further than that. I think that it has to be proportionate and it has to be able to gather things that can be gathered, so we would have to think about that. I am certainly open to suggestions about what else might be annually reported against, obviously, in Ireland. They have annual reporting across a number of areas on the numbers in a few other areas. In terms of the post-legislative review, I am again very open-minded on that, if that was to be a committee recommendation. I think that we would need time for the new system to bed in, so there will inevitably be on the numbers a bit of a spike, as there was in Ireland, in that first couple of years, as people who are already living with their acquired gender would want to go forward with the GRC. It then plateaued out after that, and I suspect that that will probably be the same, but it is useful to have the numbers through annual reporting. If the post-legislative review wanted to gather information broader than that, it would need to have a bit of time in order to be able to set up the systems to gather the information that we thought would be helpful in terms of what elements would be reviewed. I hope that that would be helpful. Just very briefly, the way the bill is drafted sets out minimum reporting requirements, and absolutely it would be in line with what is in the bill to provide additional detail where possible, and that is something that we have absolutely considered. We would need to discuss with NRS, and they are particularly conscious of, if we are starting to talk about very small numbers of people, that there might be issues around publishing a granularity of data. Again, that is picked up in the drafting of the bill. Just very briefly, on this idea of potentially there being an initial spike of applications and maybe leaving it a few years before doing a formal review, it is also worth looking at the initial introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, where for the first three years or so the numbers were very, very high. It was only after about three or four years that it settled out, and you got a more accurate picture of how it was operating. In terms of data collection, I have heard evidence in committee, but also in other areas through the engagement that I have carried out as part of my fact finding on this piece of legislation, that there is an obvious difference between capturing population level data and individual level data. The population level data that we have touched on, in terms of individual level data, there are some concerns around people falling off the radar for particular health services. I appreciate again that this is not always directly related to the bill, but I think that it is important that we consider for people who understand it. I also want to be clear that I believe that trans people do absolutely understand their bodies and are probably more mindful of their physical bodies than other people for various reasons. However, what more could the Government do to ensure that trans women are called for the sort of services through the health service that they would need on the basis of some of their biological characteristics that they might retain after having a gender recognition certificate and, similarly, for trans men? I know that the Scottish Trans Alliance has a mechanism in place around the kind number of changes that has worked in different areas. What is the Government's view on how we could support that kind of approach to data gathering? I think that this is an issue that we would want to pick up with health colleagues. Peter, I do not know if you want to add any detail to that, but I think that it is a fair point. Yes, absolutely. It is an operational question for NHS and one of those things that is not necessarily directly linked to the bill itself, but they should have systems in place that can cope with those kinds of changes already. Our understanding is that they broadly do, but they might not work perfectly in every instance. We are very grateful for the work of third sector bodies, but NHS should be able to cope with that kind of thing. Thank you. My final area of questioning, if that is okay, is around single-sex spaces. I appreciate that we have had extensive discussion today and throughout committee evidence sessions on that. In particular, I want to start with section 22, which we have touched on, protected information. Can the cabinet secretary set out whether the Government has decided that the bill does not impact on the exemptions and whether you have considered whether there is a need for any further exemptions to section 22 and what guidance would be issued by the Government or others on that, particularly in relation to the general occupational requirements? We are very clear that the bill has no impact on the Equality Act 2010 provisions, including the exceptions. Everything that stands now will stand in the same way after the bill is enacted. It makes no impact whatsoever. Of course, we know that the guidance from the HRC has been updated, and that guidance has been for public bodies to be able to use the application of the provisions under the Equality Act 2010 in practice. How is that? There are complexities now, and the same complexities post the bill. That guidance is important, but there are no changes to be clear, absolutely no changes to the exemptions. Thank you. My final question is about the prison service. We have briefly spoken about that, and notwithstanding the comments on the numbers involved, which are small, is it your view, cabinet secretary, that, in the review of the Scottish Prison Service guidance, that agenda recognition certificate would not be considered as more of a kind of passport, as it has been in other areas in the UK, but would remain a risk-based approach to the trans person, but also the other people who are living in prison at the time as well, would a risk-based approach still take prominence over the relevance of a GRC? Scottish Prison Service is clear at the moment that, if you have a GRC or not, it does not give you any enhanced rights of where you are placed. It is all down to the risk assessment. Again, I cannot comment on other jurisdictions in terms of whether that is different in England or not. That is obviously not for me, but the Scottish Prison Service is very clear. The review is to look at whether there is anything in addition to what they are doing at the moment around the management of transgender prisoners, but they could not be clearer. It shows from where they place people, the evidence is there, the already placed people, where they think it is appropriate for them to be placed, whether or not they have a GRC. Thank you for your comments so far. To pick up on section 22 of the GRA, one of the potential concerns that we have put to us is that, with overseas gender recognition and confirmatory GRCs, although there is no obligation for somebody with an overseas gender recognition to obtain one, does that give you any cause for concern for people who have a gender recognition certificate from somewhere else in the world coming to Scotland? Because of the lack of requirement for any need for evidence provision or anything like that, how difficult would it be for employers to obtain information under protected information provision of section 22? A question around concerns for employers gaining access to information that they might need around safety and that kind of thing for people who come with GRCs from other countries? Given that, as a general principle, GRC obtained overseas would be recognised in Scotland, in theory confirmatory GRCs should not be widely needed, the bill provides for them in cases where someone is having difficulty obtaining that recognition or wants clear evidence of the legal recognition of their lived gender, so perhaps someone fleeing a war-torn country, for example, where they do not have access to records, is going to be a tiny, tiny number of cases, but it is a provision with that kind of thing in mind, as I understand, Peter. There was an example in relation to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, where various records were destroyed and were achievable, so that was an example in considering the confirmatory GRC provisions. The type of example completely destructs the records in a different country. Another aspect in relation to section 22, if I might just add, is that there is no substantive change made to section 22 by the schedule of the bill. Protected information still relates to an application for a GRC or a person's acquired gender before the GRC is issued. I suppose that the concern is that, because that information is protected, can you see an instance where some information that we would maybe want disclosed in terms of public safety or anything else would not be because it is protected? No, absolutely. In cases where there may be criminal investigations or consensuit criminality, those would be areas in which that would be disclosed, so those are the kind of areas in which they are. That is correct. In terms of the exceptions to section 22, preventing and investigation of crime is one of the exceptions listed in section 22. That is correct. On the section 22 exceptions, I think that it is probably true that we are generally open to conversations about whether additional exceptions are needed on section 22, but our view is that probably this bill would not be the best way to do that, given that this bill is focused on the process for obtaining a GRC, not the effect of a GRC on how it works. That is helpful. Thank you, convener. I have a supplementary question. Just on the back of what Pam Duncan Glancy, my colleague, has been talking about single sex spaces. Cabinet secretary, obviously listening to yourself today that you have made it clear that certain things, especially single sex spaces, are not affected by this bill. Going back to that, do you think that the Government or yourself could have done something differently to help those people who are opposing the bill to better understand what it does and does not do? Is there anything lessons learned from that that we can go back to? There are a lot of concerns out there. I certainly know that people stop me in the streets in my constituency areas. Is there anything that we have learned from this if we are not going to be suspending this stage 1 and we are going ahead? I have tried to speak as much about what this bill does not do as what it does do. I have said so many times, particularly in relation to the Equality Act 2010, that this has no impact on the Equality Act 2010, because it could not have, because it is a reserved act anyway, but we would not want it to, because we think that the exemptions are important. We all have a responsibility, to be honest, to try to set out not just what the bill is about but what it is not about. It is difficult to do that on social media, because it is difficult to have a conversation on social media by the nature of social media. We have continuously tried to put key points across in relation to our interaction with mainstream media. When I made a statement to Parliament, I tried to set out as much about what this bill was not about as what it was about. There are always lessons to be learned in anything that we do around anything, and we will always try to do that. The discussion around this is a very polarised one. Sometimes, even if you say things over and over again, it does not mean that people will accept that. There is not an awful law that I can do about that other than to reiterate and try to reassure that that is the case. Ultimately, the practice of what actually happens in terms of people's concerns will be allayed by what happens in practice when the bill, hopefully, becomes legislation. If you look at other countries, that should be reassuring to see that those other countries that have gone down the statutory declaration route have not seen some of the concerns that were expressed in their countries as well and have not seen those come to fruition. That is my hope that, once people see it working in operation, the tiny numbers involved do not impact in the way that some people might fear that that will help to allay their fears. Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned looking at other countries, so my question is around that. One of the concerns that were raised in previous committee sessions when we were taking evidence was about an issue on data collection on the basis of gender, as opposed to sex and potential impact. That will have equally measures such as gender pay gap, so talking about the gender pay gap. I asked that question to Senator Docherty from Ireland to see that, if they had any problems on the introduction of self-id policy, if that resulted in any concerns. Senator replied by saying that this is something that was missed out at the time when it wasn't brought to light. However, now she felt that it was something that she had to look at. There's a gap there. I just wanted to understand what your thoughts about that are about the gender pay gap in data collection. I think that Peter referred to this earlier. We understand that the censor's concerns were raised in relation to their census questions. I would look really carefully at what exactly the senator was saying because I think it would be possible to misinterpret it. It may be worth clarifying, but my understanding of what she was saying was not that the bill had impacted on the collection of sex and gender type information but that the census processes and the other processes for collecting data were not fully reflecting the lived experiences of trans people and the nuance of the questioning that they were making. It was a very different concern. I would also highlight the evidence that the committee took from Dr Kevin Gion, who looked at it specifically, and concluded that that type of information collection continues to be and has always been on the basis of sex, but sex that is identified by the individual according to their own interpretation and not specifically tied to possession of a GRC. I just want to go back to this a little bit and—or Cabinet Secretary, please—in helping people who are watching to understand this a little bit more. When we had the evidence session, there was a discussion about that somebody that said, I have to get the terminology right now, that a trans person now was obviously born as a male, that basically if they were on a higher salary compared to the other women colleagues, how would you balance that out? Obviously, it could be a certain time in a through life that that person went born as a male was in the male and was getting paid in that job. As we know, there is a big gap in female and male when it comes to the gender pay gap, the actual pay gaps itself with female and males. How do you see that balancing out? If they move over and there are trans women and other women colleagues working with them are on less pay, how do we work that out? That is obviously not directly related to the bill because if there is a situation like that, it will be under the existing process of the 2004 act. As I understand, close the gap in their evidence said that it was statistically going to be so small numbers that we are talking about here that it would not have any statistical impact. Close the gap in gender and those working on fair work are far more concerned about the gender pay gap between men and women that still exist across huge areas of employment. The numbers involved here are so tiny that they would not impact statistically on the figures. I think that that was in essence the evidence from close the gap, if I can remember rightly. I think that that is right and it is worth just reiterating again that gender reassignment is its own protective characteristic under the Equality Act and so consideration of differential pay or treatment would be a valid concern under that. We heard in private evidence just going back to the self-exclusion of women possibly for religious reasons. One of the witnesses—it has been published, so I can say it—had said that she agrees with you, cabinet secretary, that there had been a lot of debate and polarization and confusion around the issue. She also raised concerns that there could be a postcode lottery for the services and cited a shopping centre where there were no female or male changing facilities. She said that the individual was self-excluding from that. I wondered whether, within the scope of the bill, if there should be a recognition of the individual that that witness in private session had said that there was going to be issues in terms of that self-exclusion. I touched earlier on the evidence—I will come back to that in a second, but the evidence is led by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It said that there was no evidence from other countries around self-exclusion because of people feeling uncomfortable. There was no body of evidence to support that in terms of where that has been done elsewhere. Obviously, we do not need a gender recognition certificate to go into toilets and changing rooms, so it is not directly related to the bill. However, I think that most services are heading. There was a piece of evidence that chimed very much with me on how changing spaces have changed over the years away from communal facilities to more private space, which I think benefits everybody to be honest, giving people that private space. I accept that there may be some facilities that are on a journey towards that, but I think that those are more about the way retailers or shopping centres provide their facilities. I think that people are keener to have more private space, like private cubicles, rather than one changing room. Back in my day when I was young, it was a horrendous experience. I think that we are moved a long way away from that, and that is a good thing. It is not directly related to the bill, but it is more about just what people's expectations are around when they are accessing services. I suppose that it is ensuring that the exemptions within the Equality Act allow for inclusion, exemption and modification in that circumstance. Obviously, you do not need a gender recognition certificate to access the spaces that we are talking about. The trans community has been accessing spaces, aligning with our acquired gender for probably as long as we have all been around and longer. The exceptions and exemptions under the act relate to services such as the service that I cited earlier on, where it was about a service to support victims of sexual assault or rape. It is legitimate as long as it is proportionate to exclude trans women in that case—it could be trans men in other cases, but trans women in that case are from that service. The act sets out very clearly that it has to be a proportionate response to the issue. That is absolutely right. The bill changes none of that. That is still the case. I think that there is, if I am being honest, having listened to a lot of witnesses in the private sessions. They have come to a private session for a very reason that they feel scared to speak up. I am aware of the person who decided to shop online after experiencing a male in a shop-changing room. There are people with concerns. You are recognising that within the evidence that you are giving today. I respect that. I just want to be clear that as you say, there are polarised views on that. Even for that to reform gender recognition, there has to be a recognition that there is a fear. I think that you get that. I would just reiterate that this bill does not change any of that. I know that we keep talking about that. We keep talking about that and repeating that. I have said in evidence a couple of times that I wonder whether the Equality Act within those exemptions is meeting that reform that we are saying now within Governments? It does, because it requires a proportional response and that people are not excluded in a disproportionate way. The only other observation that I would make is that the private space that the committee has created has been a very good one, both for people to be able to express views that are concerned about the bill and for people from the trans community who feel very excluded and affected very deeply by some of the debate that has been going on. It has provided a space for anyone who would rather be able to give their view and opinion in a private space. I commend the committee for having done that. It has clearly allowed you to hear evidence that might not otherwise have been heard. Finally, on going back to the criminal offence to make a full statutory declaration, I do not feel as though I have heard enough around that. When we were in private session with the individual that Karen Adams spoke about, who had transitioned and then transitioned again, that person was not aware of any criminal offence. Would that person be subject to imprisonment or a fine in that case? Do you have any clarifications on that, if you do not mind, convener? Well, not if, at the time that they applied for their gender recognition certificate, that was clearly and honestly what they wanted to do. They were not making a false declaration because, at that point, that was their intention. If a year down the line someone then changes their mind and wants to use a process to detransition, for lack of a better word, then no, because clearly at the time that was their honest view. They were not trying to mislead, they were not trying to make a false declaration. That was their honest view of where they were in their life, so they would not face a fine or imprisonment or anything like that. It is only if they make a false declaration. That is probably worth, from my perspective, some of the witnesses that we took were using the word transition in relation to social transition or medical transition rather than a GRC necessarily and using GRC processes. Any further questions from members? No. Well, cabinet secretary, Peter Collin, thank you all very, very much. That brings the public part of our meeting to a close and we will now move into private session.