Chamber and committees

Thank you very much.

The committee has heard all too often that a variety of organisations do not collect data on ethnicity. That often makes it much harder to find areas in which outcomes are significant for minorities. Is there a way that data on client ethnicity can be collected sensitively by VoiceAbility for future annual reports?

Thanks for the answer, minister. I will be happy to get involved in future.

At First Minister’s question time, the First Minister said in reply to my colleague Martin Whitfield that the Scottish Government would focus on the growth of both hydrogen and green hydrogen as part of Scotland’s renewable energy mix. Given that the Friends of the Earth Scotland report highlights problems with hydrogen and green hydrogen, can the Scottish Government assure me that its focus will be on the forms of energy that we can rely on for our transition to net zero?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether provision can be made for access to the room for contemplation for evening events held during recess. (S6O-01572)

When I hosted an event for faith groups during the October recess, attendees were forced to pray in the reception, as they were not able to access the room for contemplation. I understand that parliamentary opening hours are curtailed during recess but, as long as members are able to host events that extend outside those hours, surely it makes sense to allow members and their guests to have access to the room for the duration of such an event.

Good morning, minister. People from a minority ethnic background are often hit harder by cultural or community stigma and might find it harder to seek help when they need to. What can be done to address that?

For the record, cabinet secretary, what is your interpretation of the 2010 act?

Like Pam Gosal, I am a new MSP, and this is my first time speaking to an amendment, so please be kind to me.

My amendment 104 intends to ensure that there is no contradiction between the provisions in the bill and the Equality Act 2010. It is a compromise. I was advised that the best way to achieve that aim would be to insert an exception into the 2004 act—for example, in section 15 or section 16—to ensure that that legislation would have the same effect as my amendment would in Scotland. Unfortunately, that was ruled out of the scope of the bill; I should say that I do not entirely agree with that. The reasoning was that the bill is to do with the process of getting a GRC in Scotland, not what a GRC does. However, the question of what a GRC does is implicit in the bill. Why else would the question of whether a GRC legally changes one’s sex for the purposes of the 2010 act have been raised in our business at all?

When some have made it clear that their view is that a GRC changes one’s legal sex, and others have made it clear that that would render the legal protections for single-sex spaces in the 2010 act impossible to maintain, it is important to clarify that point. I hope that the minister will clarify in her response whether the Scottish Government believes that a GRC that is granted under this legislation would change one’s legal sex as well as one’s gender. My amendment seeks to clarify that point as far as is allowable within the scope of the bill, in order to ensure that nothing in the bill overrules the existing protections or definitions in the 2010 act.

I appreciate the efforts of Pam Duncan-Glancy and Rachael Hamilton to achieve that aim through similar means. However, my amendment differs in specifically adding clarity on the definitions in the 2010 act.

The EHRC briefing that was circulated to MSPs voiced its support for clarifying the relationship with sections 11 and 212 of the 2020 act, with a view to addressing cross-border complexities. It said:

“By broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland.”

In short, if we do not make the matter clear in the bill, we will be inviting legal challenges to clarify contradictions that we as legislators will have created. I do not believe that that is a responsible approach to creating legislation on matters that are so important.

Recently, I held a round-table meeting with people who represented many of Scotland’s faith communities. They were unanimous in voicing their concern about the ability to maintain the single-sex spaces that are required for their religious purposes. Participants even noted that there was little support from the Scottish Government when it comes to the practicalities of implementing such law. They said that there is a sense that the rules are handed down from MSPs in ivory towers and that it is left for everyone else to deal with the consequences. In this case, the consequences will include places of worship and low-paid front-line workers having to work out how to police single-sex spaces themselves.

It cannot be right that we invite those legal contradictions and then expect religious organisations and low-paid workers, for example, to navigate the resulting legal minefield. Therefore, there must be clarity in the bill on the relationship with the 2010 act. That is why I lodged my amendment.

My amendment makes it clear that the Equality Act 2010 needs to be taken into account when considering the final GRR bill. If the bill is passed, can women be absolutely confident that men will not be present in spaces reserved for women, whether that is a single-sex hospital ward, women and girls sporting activities, women’s refuges or those spaces reserved for women to practise their religion?