Convener, could I ask one short follow-up question?

I, too, am keen to know about the number of jobs. When the minister came to the committee, he said that VoiceAbility would create 100 new jobs and that 75 per cent of staff would come from the long-term unemployed. When will those 100 new jobs be available? Mr Senker, I hear your point about the number of staff not being a limiting factor. If there is another limiting factor, it would be helpful to know what it is so that we can help you to address it. If the minister says there will be 100 new jobs and you are saying that the number of jobs will be demand led, I am wondering how long it will take to get to that point. I think that there will be quite a bit of demand, so it would be helpful to know about that.

The figures that we have show that £0.5 million has been spent so far and that there is a projected spend of £20 million over four years. Is that forecast based on the recruitment of a specific number of staff?

I have one further question about training. I appreciate your answers, so thank you.

I know that Susan Douglas-Scott will realise the importance of this next issue, because she has done some of the training in the past. It is important that your organisation and staff have an understanding of the lived experience of disabled people and what that means for a service such as yours. Will you set out the ways in which you train your staff to understand disability equality and what that means? Do you have any relationships with disabled people’s organisations that could help with that?

I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said. I understand the various bits of regulation that might come to the committee, and I am under no illusions about the level of work that that could involve. However, in a bill such as this, something like that probably needs to have the level of scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure, as opposed to the negative procedure, which, in my short time in the Parliament, I have learned does not provide as much opportunity for scrutiny. I do not think that some of those aspects should be left to the negative procedure, so I do, I am afraid, press the amendment.

Thank you for that answer. I take the point about the need for a system that is proportionate. No one wants to publish information about individuals, given that we are talking about small numbers. I appreciate that that is a concern.

However, when we talk about the impact of the bill, particularly in relation to how it interacts with the Equality Act 2010, it is important that we can understand that. There are concerns about the interaction with the Equality Act 2010. If we do not assess the impact, people with concerns will never know whether their concerns have come to pass, and people who think that there is no need for concern will never know whether they were right not to have concerns. It is important that we do all that we can to collect information on that so that the public can have confidence in what the bill is trying to do.

Throughout the process, Scottish Labour has sought to focus on the bill and its drafting and to reject the culture wars that have dominated some of the discussion. Casting trans people as threats or women as bigots is not helpful. What we need is good law and clear guidance, and that is what my party and I are working to achieve.

Although many concerns relate to issues that are not in the bill, we understand that some people, including women, are frightened that they will lose some of their rights, particularly in relation to single-sex services, and we know that they have fought hard for those rights.

Colleagues will know that the Equality Act 2010, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, provides protection from discrimination for women and trans people. It is our view that nothing in the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill will or should affect that. In the case of gender reassignment, it is clear that the protection from discrimination exists whether or not a GRC is in place and whether or not the person has undergone medical treatment for transition. The protections in the 2010 act also allow single-sex services, such as women’s refuges, to exclude men and trans people in certain circumstances. It is Scottish Labour’s view that the 2010 act is reserved and cannot be altered by devolved legislation, so it is our understanding that those protections will and must still apply if the bill is passed. That is a matter of great importance for many people who are concerned about the current reforms, and we recognise the desire for reassurance. That is why I lodged amendment 37.

That protection, which allows for the operation of single-sex spaces, works as an exemption to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or gender reassignation, but only when that is a proportionate response to meeting a legitimate aim. For example, in the case of a women’s single-sex service, a trans woman without a GRC could be excluded on the ground that they are legally a man. A trans woman with a GRC, who is therefore legally a woman, could also be excluded, but on the ground that they have reassigned their gender and sex on their birth certificate.

Both of those exemptions, for the protection and dignity of women who are accessing services, must be protected. That is why we support reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the continued implementation of the protections and provisions in the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it should be clear in the bill that nothing in it modifies the protections in the 2010 act. In proposing amendment 37, I seek to ensure that, should the bill pass, it is clear that Parliament believes that the GRA must be considered alongside the 2010 act.

It is also my belief that it is crucial that the Equality Act 2010 is read in as a whole, because it is the interaction of all the schedules in that act that brings its strength. Including only the aspects of the 2010 act that relate to sex could, at a later date, mean that it could be assumed that we did not give importance to, for example, gender reassignment. That would be a concern in relation to a number of issues, but that element specifically could be key with regard to applying some of the previous exemptions that I spoke about in relation to protecting single-sex services.

That is why I believe that my amendment, which focuses on the 2010 act in its entirety, affords the best and strongest protection for trans people and women and all of us. It covers the protections in sections 11 and 195 of the 2010 act, as other amendments in the group seek to do, and I believe that it will carry the confidence of the public.

On that basis, I will abstain on several amendments in the group that pick out specific sections of the 2010 act and on Jeremy Balfour’s amendment on the European convention on human rights, which was discussed previously. My amendment seeks to cover all of those without separating them from the other aspects of the 2010 act, which I believe is what brings its strengths.

I will support amendments that seek guidance on how the two acts would work together. That will be essential if the public are to have confidence in the law and in order that organisations are clear about what they can and cannot do, which my colleagues have spoken about already. Amendment 37 would ensure that, in any future dispute over Parliament’s intention in passing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, it will be clear that each and every protection and provision of the Equality Act 2010 will and must continue to have effect, despite the passage of the bill.

Amendment 153 would ensure that all future changes to the legislation made by the registrar general under regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. We believe that that would give the required scrutiny that is necessary for such changes.

I move amendment 153.

Can the cabinet secretary explain why that information cannot be gathered?

On the basis that the Government will consider lodging an amendment, which I hope to support, at stage 3, I will not press amendment 147. However, I expect the Government’s amendment to address as much of the data collection as I have outlined. I do not think that there is any data outlined in amendment 147 that cannot be gathered. I look forward to trying to find an amendment that will be acceptable across the chamber, and, on that basis, I will not press my amendment today.

Amendment 147, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 148 moved—[Tess White].