Chamber and committees

Amendment 126 is a simple one that places a duty on the Scottish Government to ensure that public sector bodies collect data on biological sex alongside data on gender identity. It is not designed to frustrate, challenge or place onerous demands on the Scottish Government and public sector bodies. It is purely about ensuring access to clear, accurate baseline data on biological sex and gender identity now and in the future.

Throughout this amendment stage and during committee evidence sessions, we have heard opposing views on pretty much every issue, but it is fair to say that the value of good data is something on which we can all agree. Therefore, I am proposing that Scotland’s public sector bodies routinely and as a duty collect, retain and report quantities of data on biological sex, including all administrative and in-service processed data, in addition to legal sex gender identity.

Data is an essential tool for health and wellbeing. We know that many medicines that we use today affect male and female bodies differently. We also need good data for diseases and medicines that we do not yet know about. Researchers have found that missing patient data on sex and gender has meant that there is no accurate data on whether trans and non-binary people were, for example, more or less affected by Covid-19.

I do not really see how that is particularly relevant to this amendment, but I would actually agree.

Some may argue that it is just a matter of personal choice—that if a transgender person wants to change their sex on their medical records even with those associated risks, that is their choice—but are people receiving the best advice for their health? There are countless reports of people missing cancer screenings and experiencing delays in receiving care.

Longitudinal data is of fundamental importance for researchers and healthcare professionals. It allows them to understand people’s lives over time and improve services for all people. Although some will say that there is no reason why the legislation that we are considering would affect data collection, Professor Sullivan told the committee:

“That would be an understandable assumption, but a mistake. When the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced, it was designed to cater to a tiny number of transsexual people who suffered from severe psychological distress. The act was not intended to raise barriers to the collection of data on sex, yet that has been one of the unintended consequences of the legislation.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 21 June 2022; c 2.]

I thank the member for that intervention and welcome the sharing of that information. I believe that there was also a letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

I remind the Scottish Government of its public sector equality duty to monitor and publish data on the protected characteristic of sex and point out that mandating the collection of that data across public bodies now is likely to save future Governments and Parliaments a lot of time and trouble.

I urge members to support amendment 126.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is not working. I would have voted no.

I have another two, so do not take too long.

On that, the concern seems to be that there is not really any mention of community health services in the bill. Does that need further consideration? Where exactly are you with that?

We know that integration joint boards are sometimes not delivering and that some voices are not being heard on them. Clearly there is some consensus that, when we talk about care boards, it sounds as though we might be recreating a system and just moving people around and, if you like, just sitting them in a different seat.

Can you give us an example of anything that is working like a care board just now? I am thinking, for example, of Granite Care Consortium. It has brought in the health and social care partnership, voices of lived experience and providers with different expertise. Everyone sits down at the same table to collaborate and everyone has a voice. Is that the vision that you have in mind?

Secondly, we have heard from different people the suggestion of a national care board that would play an overarching role with regard to local care boards. Do you have any views or comments on that?

Thank you. I appreciate your committing to looking at that.

I am also interested in your vision for community health services. Will you provide some clarity? In evidence, we have heard that people have concerns around those services. They are central. Will you provide some clarity on where they will sit? People have felt that they are missing from the bill. Clearly, that issue is vital, if social care is to be viewed as an investment rather than a cost.

I have three questions. Minister, you have touched already on monitoring, evaluation and outcomes. The bones of it seem to be that we are good at asking people what they want, but we are perhaps not so good at asking, “How was it for you?”, even though that is what matters to people.

It has been suggested that we could adapt the Northern Ireland, England and Wales national survey of bereaved carers. Could you tell us quite precisely how successful we have been with regard to measurement and evaluation, and could you perhaps define what you mean when you talk about consistency and quality?

I want to pick up on that. Housing first was a revelation—we could see it really changing people’s lives with wraparound care and seamless joined-up services. The bigger picture is that public health approach at a population level. There are housing and homelessness services, but there are all those other local services that are closely related to social care, such as those relating to mental health, drugs, alcohol issues and so on. Given that, why is the NCS the way forward in order to get that seamless joined-up care that people are looking for and that really matters to them?