Chamber and committees

Okay—thank you very much.

To finish off this point, I have a question for all the witnesses. Within the limitations of the Scottish Government’s powers, where do you see the biggest bang for buck in terms of increasing productivity? Professor Ruane, you have conceded that you are not as across all the limitations, so perhaps Dr Brewer or Professor Muscatelli can take that question.

I accept what you are saying because it might well mean that more housing is available at the bottom of the ladder. However, that is only if people can get the funding for it, which links into the wider economic environment.

A lot of stuff that I was going to ask about has been covered, so I will turn to the letter that you sent to the convener, Professor Roy. My question concerns sex and gender data for child disability payments. It would be useful to refresh our memory. My recollection—you can tell me if I am wrong—is that the data that is now being collected as part of the equality monitoring form is on gender, and that the equality monitoring form could be filled in by somebody else because it is being filled in on behalf of a child. Is that right?

The point that I was trying to make in my speech is that risk assessment needs to be looked at in the round. When we look at risk assessment, we have to look at all the key stakeholders in that risk. I ask the cabinet secretary to give us a sense of the risk of further traumatising victims, because that is as important as the risk assessment around managing offenders.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise, I would have voted no.

I will speak only to amendment 39 in the group. I feel that the case for the other linked amendments has been put eloquently by Russell Findlay.

For the record, I cannot begin to imagine the angst that trans people suffer, and I offer an open heart to people who wish to live with dignity and respect in their chosen gender. My biggest concern about the bill is with regard to bad-faith actors, about whom the First Minister has also recognised concerns.

Amendment 39 specifically relates to men who are applying for a GRC who have been charged with a sexual offence, but have not yet been convicted and placed on the sex offenders register. It simply seeks to pause an application for a GRC until any court case has been resolved. During stage 2, and again today, Russell Findlay pointed out that a woman could end up having to refer to her attacker as “she”. Do members in the chamber understand how that could represent an opportunity for abusers to exert power and control over their victims?

My first point concerns risk, which involves probability and outcome. The probability of the situation that I have depicted occurring is low; however, if it were to occur, the outcome for the victim could be devastating. As a result of my history, I still suffer from post-traumatic symptoms. Feelings of desperation can resurface, sometimes with a sudden need to sleep. I can have lost days of depression. I can have an acute need to feel safe, and I have bouts of anxiety. Such has been the distress that has been caused by the bill that, one day, I had to go home in floods of tears and withdraw from a debate. I am not looking for sympathy. I have privilege; I have agency. The impact of trauma falls hardest on the weakest, the poor and the disenfranchised. I have a voice; they do not. In the past six years, who has spoken for them?

My second point is that, in those six years, the Scottish Government has not undertaken or published any qualitative impact assessment about traumatised women. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has failed to meet female sexual survivors, which has created further distress. I thank the cabinet secretary for our meetings; however, I must comment further. I know that amendment 39 will be opposed by the Government on legal grounds that are as yet untested.

My final point concerns the recent case that was won by the Scottish Government, in which it argued that a man with a GRC becomes a woman for all purposes. The logical extension of that position is that the Scottish Government regards a man who has been convicted of rape or sexual assault as a woman for all purposes. Is that really the Government’s view, and what message does it send to women? Does the Government understand that it is putting the rights of a GRC-seeking man who has been charged with sexual assault or rape above the rights of the woman who is the victim?

One solution was for the registrar general to question whether the applicant had been charged with a sexual offence. However, I was informed that this could send a message that all trans people were sexual predators, which we all agree is ridiculous. However, the reasoning is also ridiculous. Most insurance companies ask about criminal convictions, not because they believe that all those seeking insurance are criminals but because it is directly relevant to risk.

Presiding Officer, I leave all colleagues and the Scottish Government to answer the question posed by Roddy Dunlop KC. He said:

“I can conceive of no sensible basis upon which this amendment might be rejected … this would not affect trans-rights in any way. It would merely stop those rights being abused by men who are *not trans*. Why would one want to aid & abet such men?”

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Will the member take an intervention?

There are multiple further questions, but I will leave them just now, in the interests of time.

My question is for Professor Chadha and it picks up on the Brexit point. I am on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and we had representatives of the Office for Budget Responsibility in yesterday. The OBR commented on Brexit in its economic and fiscal outlook report of November 2022, in which it said that Brexit had had “a significant adverse impact”, and it quoted various statistics about trade volumes falling 8.3 per cent below the present level by quarter 4 of 2023.

The OBR also made an interesting comment about trade intensity being

“15 per cent lower ... than if the UK had remained in the EU.”

Trade intensity is a measure of a country’s interaction with the world economy. I asked what the outlook was for that to continue, and they said that they anticipate that that will continue for at least another 15 years, despite the trade deals that have been done. Are you aware of those figures, and do you have any further reflections on the outlook as outlined in the OBR’s comments to committee yesterday?