 The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on update on Scottish Government review of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions and no interruptions. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, 15 minutes please, cabinet secretary. In my statement today, I want to set out the background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the case for its reform. I will also consider the relationship between gender recognition legislation and the Equality Act 2010 and outline the steps that the Government intends to take next, both to deliver dignity for trans men and women and to continue to address concerns raised about, for example, access to women's only spaces. First the background to the 2004 act and the case for reform. In 2002, the European Court of Human Routes found the UK to have breached the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the lack of legal recognition afforded to trans people. The Parliament therefore enacted the 2004 act, which this Parliament agreed through a sole motion. As a result, trans men and women were, for the first time, given the right to seek legal recognition of their lived gender. If they were born in the UK, they would access an updated birth certificate and to do so without undergoing gender reassignment surgery or medical treatment. The 2004 act was, at the time, groundbreaking. However, over time, there have been growing recognition that the process enshrined in that act, which requires applications to be considered by a gender recognition panel, to be overly complex and medicalised. For those who are using it, the process can be deeply traumatic and stressful. In recommending reform of the act in January 2016, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee stated that the current process, and I quote, runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. Given that, my party had a commitment in our 2016 manifesto to review and reform gender recognition law and bring into line with international best practice. Every other political party represented in this Parliament made a similar manifesto commitment. The UK Government has also recognised the complexities of the system and, in 2018, consulted on reforming the law in England and Wales. There are two points that are worth stressing. First, gender recognition has been in place since 2005. It is not new. The issue that we are debating is the reform of that process by which the right to gender recognition is exercised—a matter that I will return to shortly. Second, in reforming gender recognition law, Scotland will not in any sense be leading the way or taking action that is unprecedented. On the contrary, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and Norway are among the countries that have already adopted new gender recognition processes similar to those that we have consulted on. Let me now turn to the relationship between gender recognition law and the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010, which has reserved legislation, provides protections from discrimination, victimisation and harassment on the basis of protected characteristics, including sex and gender reassignment. Across all parts of society, those rights are hard won and must be protected. One particular area of concern that has been raised about gender recognition reform, both during and since the consultation, is the impact that it will have on the provision and protection of single sex or women-only spaces and services. It is vital to be clear on that important point. The Equality Act 2010 already allows trans people to be excluded in some circumstances from single sex services where that is proportionate and justifiable, including where a trans person has legal recognition. The Government's proposals to reform the gender recognition act will not affect that position. This Government wants to protect and promote the rights of women, and we want to protect and promote the rights of trans people too. I am a feminist and I am deeply and rightly proud that this Government has taken such clear and concerted action to protect women's rights and to promote gender equality. I have stated before, as has the First Minister, that I do not feel a conflict between my support for women's rights and for trans rights, but I know and I understand that many do. It is important that we listen to and importantly address those concerns. Of course, at their core, those concerns are not about trans women, rather they are about men who seek to abuse women. The fear is that some men will misuse trans equality to access women and to do us harm. I understand that. I understand that predatory men will always seek to find ways to harm women. That is not a new problem in Scottish or global society, nor is it a problem that is created by or the fault of the trans community. This Government has a duty to address the concern that reforming the process for gender recognition will increase the risks that women face from men. That is something that I have sought to do already and will continue to do as we seek to build confidence that achieving equality and dignity for trans men and women is possible without diminishing the rights of anyone else. In my view, an important aspect of that is to be clear about what the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act actually entails and, just as importantly, what it does not entail. Let me move now to our proposed next steps. As members are aware, in 2018, the Scottish Government held a 16-week public consultation. It sought views on the proposal that, for applicants for gender recognition, the existing requirements to provide medical information and evidence that they have lived in the required gender for at least two years be removed. Over 15,500 responses were received, and 49 per cent of responses came from Scotland. 60 per cent of all responses and 65 per cent of those from Scotland were in favour of reform. However, some groups raised concerns, and since the closure of the consultation additional issues, many, not in fact directly related to the bill's proposals, have also been raised. I have taken time to listen and to understand those concerns. I have also heard the counts of the anxiety and trauma that the current process causes trans people and the difference that reform of the law would make to their ability to live their lives with dignity and acceptance. I will now set out our proposed way forward. Let me be very clear that the Scottish Government remains committed to reforming the 2004 act and ensuring the process for trans people to access a gender recognition certificate is in line with international best practice, and, more importantly, it does not result in any unnecessary stress. However, I am acutely aware of how divided opinion is on this issue, and I want to proceed in a way that builds maximum consensus and allows valid concerns to be properly addressed. For that reason, we will not introduce legislation to Parliament immediately. Instead, it is my intention to publish a draft gender recognition Scotland bill later this year. The bill will be formally introduced to Parliament only when there has been full consultation on the precise details contained in that draft bill. That consultation will include draft impact assessments, including a comprehensive updated equality impact assessment, to ensure that all rights are protected in a balanced way. This additional step in the process will, I hope, give Parliament and all stakeholders the opportunity to consider and respond to specific proposals, and it will allow discussions to move from the general to the detailed. All aspects of the draft bill will be open for consultation. We will take forward the legislation when that process has taken place, and we are content that responses have been analysed, concerns are laid, and that we can introduce a bill that has the support of this Parliament and of the public. We will inform Parliament of the timetable for legislation once that process has been completed. Let me now outline some of the key provisions that will be in that draft bill for consultation. Existing requirements in the 2004 act to provide medical evidence will be removed. However, it is important to stress that the current requirements will be replaced by an alternative statutory process. The term self-identification is routinely used, but in my view, that does not adequately reflect the seriousness or the permanency of the process envisaged. As now, applicants will be required to make a solemn statutory declaration that they intend to live in their acquired gender permanently. In addition, applicants will be required to state in the statutory declaration that they have already been living in their acquired gender. Currently, applicants for a gender recognition certificate are required to have been living in their acquired gender for a minimum of two years. It is the opinion of the Scottish Government that that should be reduced. Our initial proposal will be for three months, but again, that will be fully consulted on. The draft bill will propose that, after an application for gender recognition has been made and has been checked to ensure that the necessary information and statutory declaration have been provided, there will be a mandatory three-month reflection period before a gender recognition certificate can be granted. At the end of this period, an applicant will need to confirm that they still wish to proceed. Applicants will need to have lived in their acquired gender for at least six months before a gender recognition certificate can be granted. It is and will remain a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration the potential punishment for which it includes up to two years imprisonment. Retaining the requirement for a statutory declaration, being clear of false declaration is a criminal offence, and building in time for reflection enshrines in law the seriousness of the process. No one should doubt that that is a significant undertaking and requires the same level of commitment from the individual as the existing system does. The draft bill will not propose legal gender recognition for those under 16, though we will consider further whether the minimum age of applicants should be reduced from 18 to 16. The consultation will also seek views on what support is needed generally for children and young people and certain of their gender identity. Central to this is ensuring that all young people have access to support from a trusted adult who they know will listen sympathetically and without judgment, whether that be from a third sector organisation or mental health and wellbeing service. I have heard directly from young trans people of the fear that they face, and our mental health and wellbeing strategy sets out that we must have a country where people can get the right help at the right time, free from discrimination and stigma. That must be true for those who are querying their gender identity just as it should be for all young people. I do not intend at this time to extend legal gender recognition to non-binary people, but we recognise the need to address the issues that non-binary people face. I intend to establish a working group to consider possible changes to procedures and practice and what we can learn from best practice internationally as well as from within Scotland and the rest of the UK. As I said earlier, it is clear that not all of the concerns raised over the past years relate to the specifics of the proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act. Instead, they are about wider societal and policy issues connected to sex and gender. We recognise that unless we build a strong foundation of clear policy and guidance, then many concerns, particularly from some women, will not be a lead, while at the same time trans rights may not be upheld. Equally, it is important that we ensure policies that we put in place, protect the rights of different groups of people and avoid what may appear to be some rights taking precedence over others. Everyone in Scotland deserves to know that this Government will work to promote their rights and protect them from discrimination. It is not enough for me to just say that it is our aim. We must demonstrate that commitment in a way that everyone can have trust in. That Government will therefore develop guidance that helps to bring clarity to those issues and ensures that policy makers and service providers better understand how to ensure that the hard-won rights of both women and trans people can be collectively realised. That will be used across the Scottish Government and available to all public authorities to help to inform policy development and implementation. It will also of course be publicly available. I can confirm that the type of approach to policy development is being used by the Scottish Government on guidance for schools. We recognise that this is a complicated area, and the recent guidance for schools from LGBT youth Scotland on transgender young people was produced in good faith and with wide consultation and engagement, with a clear intention of supporting teachers to ensure that all transgender and non-binary children and young people are safe, supported and included in their schools. However, the complexity of those issues mean that valid concerns have been raised. The Scottish Government recognises that, in taking the inarguably good general principle of inclusivity and developing specific recommendations, the approach risks potentially excluding other girls from female only spaces, and that cannot be right. We have therefore decided to replace the LGBT youth work with guidance from the Scottish Government. That work is already under way and will be available by the end of the year and be subject to an equality impact assessment. In addition, I want to take this opportunity to begin to address an issue that was raised by some women's groups during the consultation—the collection, disaggregation and use of data by sex and gender. The issue does not result specifically from gender recognition, but there is some overlap, and it has also received increased prominence following the publication of the book Invisible Women by Caroline Carrado-Perez. The book has drawn attention to the frequency with which data is neither collected nor aggregated in a way that takes account of the differences, including biological and physical differences, between men and women and the impact of that in areas such as transport, health and access to services. I can therefore announce that the Scottish Government will establish a working group on sex and gender and data comprise of professionals from across statistical services. That will be led by a report to the chief statistician. The working group will consider what guidance should be offered to public bodies on the collection of data on sex and gender, including what form data collection and disaggregation is most appropriate in different circumstances. The debate in relation to gender recognition has raised a wide number of issues. The aim of this Government is to ensure that trans people in Scotland enjoy equality and feel safe and accepted for who they are. We want to achieve that, and we believe that we can do so in a way that does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. Those issues need to be considered carefully, openly, thoughtfully and respectfully. A process of deliberation that is taken forward in such a way will, in my view, enable us to bring forward balanced and evidence proposals and legislation that can be agreed on by this Parliament and supported by the public. I will continue to engage and listen to stakeholders and I will maintain my open door policy to all MSPs. I will carry out my role to protect all rights and promote equality for all respectfully. I hope that, in the coming months, everyone in this chamber will do the same and that, just as this Parliament has found consensus in the past, we will be able to do so again. I am happy to take questions. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement and I will allow up to 30 minutes for that. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask the question would press their request-to-speak buttons now, please. Thank you to the cabinet secretary for the early sight of her statement. I am very pleased to see that we have seen an update from the Scottish Government on that. I am sure that I speak for all members when I say that this topic has raised strong feelings from all sides and that there has been very high volume of correspondence. What I wish to put on record today and what I have been saying to all constituents and interest groups who have contacted me about this is my sincere belief that we need to keep this debate respectful and open. We need to listen to one another so that we can get this right. I welcome the announcement of another consultation. Very often, I think that we forget as politicians that not everyone is aware that such consultations take place and, given the concerns that have been raised, it is sensible that we allowed a wider debate to take place. I also welcome that an equality impact assessment will be carried out. Can I ask the cabinet secretary for more detail on the alternative statutory process as this will be the main focus of the bill? Can I also ask whether there will be any levy on the six-month timeframe cited and whether there will be flexibility in increasing or decreasing it? Can I also ask just roughly when the Scottish Government expects the consultation process to be over and responses published? I begin by thanking Annie Wells for that question and the tone in which we are having this conversation. I see, as we move forward, that this will be a conversation that I will hopefully have with members from across the chamber as we move forward. She is absolutely right to say that this debate has strong feelings from many people, but we need to have that respectful and open debate and listen to each other together. I am sure that if we do that, we can move forward. The consultation is very important because it will allow a wider debate about the detail of what is going on. There has been a lot of speculation about what I am saying today or not saying, and we can now discuss that in detail, which I am certainly very pleased about. The statutory process is, as I laid out in my statement, an issue that is absolutely available and open for that consultation. We will put forward our proposals, such as the six-month timeframe in terms of how long a person should have been living in an acquired gender before application and that period of reflection. However, I am very thoughtful of the lessons that we can learn from international examples and what we can do to ensure that we provide reassurance for those who need that reassurance about how that process works. I look forward to working with Annie Wells and others on the issue as we move forward. Pauline McNeill I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of today's statement, which is comprehensive and I welcome the fact that we have one. I also welcome the opportunity to question the cabinet secretary as a member who scrutinised and supported the 2004 act on gender recognition. Scottish Labour has always been at the vanguard of promoting equality, dignity and respect, and we strongly believe that people should be able to live their lives free from prejudice. I know from my own case work that trans people face prejudice and discrimination every day. It is those principles that will undermine our approach to scrutinising the proposed legislation when it comes forward. We are clear that specialist services for trans people can be improved now without legislation or reduction in the fever or gender recognition certificate, and the processes could be simpler without legislation. I have three questions for the cabinet secretary. In the move to a statutory declaration for gender recognition legislation, is that any thought that has been given to how a false declaration would be established? Secondly, the statement says in the reference to the equality act 2010. It is our view that this applies where a trans person has legal recognition. The Government's proposals to reform the equality act will not affect that position. I just wanted to get an answer in relation to that on page 6. It also says that the consultation will include a draft impact assessment, including a comprehensive updated equality impact assessment. I just wanted to be clear that we cannot draw any conclusions from our equality impact assessment before it is done. Finally, the working group that I welcome on sex and gender data will there be representation of trans people and non-binary people to ensure that scrutiny all the way down is inclusive? Shirley-Anne Somerville I thank Pauline McNeill for those questions and I absolutely recognise the history that Scottish Labour has on equality issues in general, including on that issue. It is also an issue that this Parliament can be exceptionally proud of the work that we have done. I hope with that history that we can find a way forward and move and consensus on that. The aspects of false declarations are, of course, an exceptionally important one. It really is the basis on which I hope that people can have faith and trust in the system that we have. On this and on others, I do not come to the chamber with all the answers today. I am laying forward the Government's proposals and very much this is an open consultation where the direction of travel and the destination of changing the gender recognition reform is set. However, how we do that and the details of how we do that, including around false declarations, I think is very important that we set out. I have tried to do that in the work that we have done about ensuring a period of reflection, of ensuring that it is a statutory declaration that someone is meeting in front for notary public. In terms of the very, very strong prison sentence that is there if there is a false declaration. However, if there are other areas that we can look at, I am more than happy to do so. My comments on the Equality Act and on women's safe spaces are based on what is in the Equality Act, which is reserved and which we will not be asking the UK Government to change and which, from my discussions with the UK Government, it has no intention of changing either. The reassurance that I tried to provide in my statement on women's safe spaces will not be changed by the proposals for change, but it is important that we carry out an equality impact assessment to look at the differences that the reforms that we are proposing will change, but it will not be around the exemptions for single sex services. We have not decided on the make-up of working groups and so on, but I absolutely take the point that it is important that I listen to the trans community, to people who identify as non-binary, to women's groups and so on. How we do that? Again, I am more than happy that Pauline McNeill has specific suggestions on that for us to discuss that later, either in person or in correspondence. Moving now to open questions, the front-bench questions have taken a long time. I know that it is a subject that many people want to ask questions on, so if we could bear that in mind as we move forward. I have Angela Constance followed by Patrick Harvie. The cabinet secretary in her balanced and thoughtful statement reminded us all that all parties represented in this chamber made manifesto commitments to reform the gender recognition act. Given that we cannot have equality for one group and not another, I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could say more about how we will protect and enhance the rights of both transgender people and women without diminishing the rights of either. The Government has an absolute determination to ensure that we have equality for all groups in our community. That concludes the trans community, who suffer discrimination and who can be exceptionally isolated. It is important that we take action on that, but we need to consider how we support all groups in our society. That is why, as we are moving forward with the proposed changes to gender recognition, we absolutely have to recognise and I have to recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the proposals for reform. We very much can move forward to alleviate those concerns if we put the work in on a cross-party basis to be able to deliver that consensus. It is very important that we respect the views of those who have concerns about that, because I fundamentally believe that it is possible for the Parliament to be able to pass legislation that respects the rights of both the trans community and women that have been long fought for. Patrick Harvie, followed by Jenny Gilruth. I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement. I welcome the fact that it contains a commitment to the principle of gender recognition act reform, including the move to a self-declaration system that is already in place without a problem in a number of other countries. I also welcome the balance with which the cabinet secretary discussed the other concerns and questions that have been raised. The statement recognised that many such concerns are not about trans people but about the abuse of men and the threat that they pose. All women, including trans women and other trans people, are at particular risk from that kind of behaviour, so that is something that we should all want to see taken seriously. However, trans people have been waiting a long time for that reform and they have support from across the political spectrum and from well respected women's and feminist organisations across Scotland as well. Does the cabinet secretary agree that they deserve to know that a Parliament in which every single member stood for election on a manifesto promise to deliver that reform will indeed pass the legislation? Can the cabinet secretary confirm that it is the Government's intention that the legislation will be introduced in good time to be completed before the end of this Parliament? Before I call Shirley-Anne Somerville, I can just say that there are lots of people who wish to ask questions here. If everyone insists on making statements before they ask the question, we are not going to get through half of those that I have requests for. I fully appreciate that some people will be frustrated by my proposals today, that they feel that the pace of reform has not gone fast enough for them. I want to see reform of the gender recognition process. I want to introduce a bill about gender recognition, but more important, I want to see a bill about gender recognition passed by this Parliament and passed with wide support, not just in this chamber but in the wider public. In my judgment, the proposals that I set out today are the best way to achieve that. Others may disagree and I absolutely respect that entirely, but I want to get to the same destination. I would ask those who are feeling frustrated to work with me to that point. We will move forward with a bill once the consultation has gone forward, as I have said in the statement. Once those consultation responses have been analysed, we will report back to Parliament on the timetable for that bill in due course. Jenny Gilruth, followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act have been in place for longer than a decade, and given that there is a clear exemption for transgender people accessing single sex spaces and single sex services under the Equality Act, when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, can the cabinet secretary explain if the changes being outlined today seek in any way to change that? If you will allow me, I will repeat what I have said on this earlier, because I think that it is an exceptionally important point, and one that has quite rightly raised a great deal of concern. The Equality Act, I can confirm again, the 2010 Equality Act enables service providers to offer separate and differing services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria. Those services can treat people with protected characteristics of gender reassignment differently or exclude them completely where the action taken is proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. I spoke in my statement about the ability of a women's refuge to refuse entry. Once again, we are not planning to ask the UK Government for any changes to the exemptions in this area in the 2010 act. Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We asked for reform of the GRA in the last Parliament because it was harming trans people then, just as it is harming them now. I understand what the cabinet secretary is trying to achieve here, but I am concerned that there is now a risk that we might not pass legislation before this Parliament rises. For every month, the debate does not take place in this chamber. It takes place outside and is subject to rising tension and misinformation. If a draft bill will be ready later this year, can we run the second public consultation concurrently with the stage 1 process to give us a fighting chance of delivering reform in this Parliament? Shirley-Anne Somerville? No, I do not think that those aspects can be done concurrently at all. I would not think that that is advisable. Again, if I did not express it clearly enough to Patrick Harvie's question, it is our commitment to bringing forward a bill in this Parliament. That is what I want to do, but I do believe that it is absolutely imperative that we have that wider consultation about a draft bill first. I do not believe that what happens within a stage 1 process, important though that is, would have allowed the type and length of consultation that we will get through a draft bill. It is possible for us to do that draft bill and then present a bill to Parliament later on. That is possible within the timetable, but we will make sure that we have the consultation process and ensure that we analyse the responses from that and will update Parliament in due course. Joan McAlpine, followed by Jamie Greene. I welcome the commitment to a full equality impact assessment, the replacement of the school's guidance and the review of the statistics. I hope that that will include crime statistics. I would like to pay tribute to the independent women's campaign groups who have lobbied for this. Those campaign groups totally respect the right of transgender people to live however they wish, but this proposal is about changing sex. It means that any man can still change his sex to female without a medical diagnosis or any gatekeeping at a time when many more people are identifying as the opposite sex without making physical changes. The cabinet secretary did not mention the fact that the GRA confers extensive rights to privacy, which makes the single sex exemptions in the equality act hard to enforce. Can the cabinet secretary tell us if she thinks men with a history of violence against women should be allowed to change their legal sex and conceal their past identity? I welcome her comments on the single sex rights of the equality act 2010, and they are absolutely correct. However, the Scottish trans alliance lobbied to get rid of these and has been telling people now that they do not exist and that trans people can access single sex services. In conclusion, could she perhaps issue guidance because the single sex exemptions are not being enforced? Could she issue guidance on that and perhaps review how the equality act's single sex exemptions are working across Scotland? On the final point, I reiterate once again that this Government has absolutely no intention to make any changes to or request that the UK Government makes any changes to the equality act 2010 or to the exemptions that are in place. It is very important that I stress once again the point that I made in my statement that gender recognition has been in place since 2005. It was in place because a bill was passed by the UK Parliament because of the necessity to ensure that we have a legal provision to allow people to change their gender. That has been in place, as I say, since 2005. That is not new. What we are debating here is the reform of that process. I also point out and, hopefully, reassure on one particular aspect that Joan McAlpine mentioned that you cannot take advantage of current privacy protections in the Gender Recognition Act 2010 to hide a criminal offence. Individuals can obtain disclosure certificates for employment purposes. Previous names must be provided as part of that process. If a trans person is applying for a disclosure, they can apply using the present name and gender. However, they have to also give previous names, and those must be sent to disclosure Scotland. It is a criminal offence to make a false statement in relation to an application for a disclosure certificate. Jamie Greene, followed by Richard Lyle. We have been asked by many whether we support trans rights or women's rights. I think that we can do both, and I think that it is the right and proper thing that every one of us in this chamber does both. Today's statement will come as a disappointment to some, but it will also offer some comfort to others, perhaps in equal measures. Can I ask a specific issue that has not been raised yet around the guidance in schools? It was not clear to me from the statement what exactly is wrong with the current LGBT youth Scotland guidance that is given. Why is the minister replacing it, and what will it be replaced with? It goes back to one of the areas that I raised in my statement in general about the fact that people have to have trust and transparency around policies and how they have been developed. Now, as I said in my statement, LGBT youth went out to wide consultation on this issue. The guidance was delivered in good faith and with an absolute clear intention to help those in the trans community and those who identify as non-binary. However, there have been concerns raised about it. My fear is that, with the level of concern that there was, people were losing faith in that guidance and, therefore, it is perhaps not being used or it is being called into question. That is why it is important that the Scottish Government looks at the guidance around policy and implementation so that people can have faith in the policy and how it is being decided. My hope from the work that we can do within Government and within our public agencies is that people can have trust in the policy at the end of the day and that that will reassure women and also reassure those in the trans community that we take the issues that they are bringing to the Government in terms of bullying, mental health issues and so on, exceptionally seriously and we want to see policies in place that can work for both. However, I absolutely agree with the member's statement that we can do both. Again, I hope that I can work with him and others within his party to be able to achieve exactly that. There is no doubt that learning about gender recognition has been a journey of discovery for many. What I have realised is that I have found out the facts of what reform is proposed and what it will mean for trans people is different from what people may think is proposed. Reading from the cab sex speech, I note that the aim of this Government is to ensure that trans people in Scotland enjoy equality and feel safe and accepted for who they are. I welcome that statement. Can the cabinet secretary explain how she can get this over to the public? For I, for one, want it to be put over to the public. Shirley-Anne Somerville I absolutely agree with what the member says. This is a complex area and it raises emotions. I think that this area, in particular social media, is not always the most accurate source of information on this. That includes just what I am supposedly saying today, never mind the wider areas around it. That is why I tried to set out in my statement the direction of travel. However, I have also published a short fact sheet on the proposals that I have outlined today in my statement. In addition, when we publish the consultation on the draft bill, we will also publish more detailed fact sheets. I will consider what more can be done to provide straightforward, accurate information that may allay concerns in some areas. Again, I would welcome ideas from members about how we can best provide accurate and factual information, which is absolutely a responsibility of me. It is a responsibility of this Government, but it is a responsibility, as I said at the end of my statement, for everybody in this chamber to be able to carry out the conversation with dignity and respect that people should have for differing opinions on the issue. Kezia Dugdale, followed by Gail Ross. In the past few months, my trans constituents have had their very existence questioned. They have faced hateful rhetoric and have been told that they are psychologically unwell. All they want is to have a birth certificate that reflects who they are. They are not ill, but the sustained deliberation over their right to exist is damaging for their mental health and their wellbeing. So what additional support can the Government offer the trans community now that we have put the public spotlight on them? I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind Kezia Dugdale's question. All they want is a birth certificate that reflects who they are. I absolutely agree with that statement. That is why, as I said during my statement, I want to pass that reform to recognise the importance that those in the trans community place on it. I understand and am acutely aware that this debate has been toxic. I am also acutely aware therefore of the impact that that is having on people, including those in the trans community, who I have spoken to on a number of occasions. I hope that, as we move forward with the draft bill and we begin to debate the details of the proposals rather than the speculation that we will be able to move that debate into a different space. However, I absolutely, as I said in my statement, will continue to meet and discuss those proposals with equality groups, not just about the bill but also about the needs of the trans community in general, as we move forward to support them, which I do absolutely appreciate and understand has been a very difficult time for many of them. I have been particularly concerned about the damage that the current debate could cause to young trans people who may already feel isolated and stigmatised. What can she do to reassure them and expand on her comments on what she will consult on in terms of support for young people? That leads on very well from the discussion that Kezia Dugdale and I have just had on the impact that it has on the trans community. I very much agree that we need to support young trans people. I have met a number of individuals since I was honoured to take up this post. I have heard directly from them about their concerns about the current system, about gender recognition and also the impact that that debate is having, as I said to Kezia Dugdale. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that young trans people should receive the help and support that they need. I do intend, obviously, before this consultation issue to meet again with the trans community and to hear from their concerns directly. I would, of course, be very interested to hear from Gail Ross and other members if there are other suggestions that we need to look at. Again, it is not just about the legal gender recognition that is important, but it is about health, mental health and wellbeing to ensure that the trans community is assisted when there are areas in which they perhaps still see that there is inequality and disadvantage for them. Oliver Mundell, followed by Rona Mackay. I have strong support for the position and the tone that the cabinet secretary has set out, but does she agree that other people have a legitimate right to reach a different conclusion? For more than any other statement, I am aware that there will be many people who might not be happy with what I am proposing, because I am not going fast enough in proposals or because they do not want us to do anything. To be quite frank, we also have to recognise that there is a degree of transphobia that is in this country that we must take on at every instance. However, I am absolutely open to the fact that people have different ideas on that. I do not think that that is an area that we will come to consensus on easily, but I do think that we can. I think that this Parliament has risen to that challenge in the past. We have had draft bills, for example, over equal marriage that gave us that space. We might not get to the end of this process and have absolute unanimity around my proposals, but I would like to think that, as a chamber, we can unite around the concept of everybody in Scotland, whether it is in the trans community, whether it is women or anybody else, has the absolute right to have their rights protected and respected, and that is exactly what I think that this Parliament was established or re-established to do. Rona Mackay There are a working group that will be set up to look at data on sex and gender. I am also interested in the fact that you quoted the work of Carline Criaddo Perez and asked how we could use such data for policymaking and to promote the rights of women and tackle unconscious bias. Shirley-Anne Somerville I think that this is a very important area, as I said, that is not directly linked to the area of gender recognition, but it is very important. If there is anyone who still has not read the book Invisible Women in the chamber, I would highly recommend it as we move to the summer recess. This is an area that I have discussed with women's groups for some time. The issue around disaggregated data showing men and women separately can help to show whether there is discrimination and indicates where further work needs to be done, whether that is within health, whether that is in the workplace, whether that is in all aspects and in all parts of government. However, we need the data to be right first. We need accurate information about the roles of women and men in society to be able to provide the information for us to get our policies right. That is why I think that the working group on data will be a very important aspect of our work on sex and gender in general. Jenny Marra Presiding Officer, I thank the minister very sincerely for a very balanced and considered statement this afternoon. The questions today have shown that across the chamber there is a wealth of experience and a real commitment to getting this legislation right. Will the minister consider opening her door to MSPs from all across the chamber on a regular basis throughout this process so that we can sit down together, represent all views and reach a consensual way forward? Shirley-Anne Somerville Well, if indeed this is the last question within this statement, I think that that is an absolute fitting tone to end on. I would be delighted to take up Jenny Marra's offer on this issue to be able to work on a cross-party basis. If she has particular suggestions about the way that we can do that, I would be delighted to speak to her directly about that. As I have said earlier, we are setting out the Government's proposals in our direction for travel for this. The reason that I am moving forward with a draft bill is because I am keen to build that consensus that Jenny Marra spoke about. As I said, I would be delighted to take up Jenny Marra's invitation to work exactly on that basis. That concludes questions from the cabinet secretary's statement. I did allow a little extra time, but I am sorry that I was not able to take John Mason, Elaine Smith and Monica Lennon. We shall move on to the next item of business.