I will start by thanking all the witnesses for their written evidence, because it is really powerful. I want to open on the regulatory environment and the impact on standards and protections, given that trade has been mentioned as well as the issue of regulatory divergence both from the EU and within the UK. First, I want people to tease out the potential impact on consumer protection and animal health, because just getting that on the record is quite powerful.

Donna Fordyce talked about a cliff edge in relation to sunset clauses. Food Standards Scotland gave us some powerful written evidence about the impact on consumer health and in relation to raw milk and butcher shops, as an example, and what the wholesale sunsetting of food law would do to completely remove consumer protection but also animal health standards. I think that it was also mentioned by Sarah Millar of QMS. There was also a powerful quote from the Food Standards Agency in one of the submissions. It struck me that the comments are coming not only from the regulatory side in relation to protections but also from the trade sector. Ian Muirhead gave a strong warning about the impact on consumer protections.

Could you spell out, to have on the record, what that means in relation to public health and animal health? Do you have any thoughts about how we can prioritise preventing the potential impact of the bill? Julie Hesketh-Laird, would you like to kick off?

Ian Muirhead, you also warned about the impact of the bill on consumer protections. Do you want to say a bit about your concerns around public health, the impact on the industry and on animal health as well? The bill covers feed for animals, too, because it goes right across the spectrum.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

The First Minister will be aware of the acute housing crisis in Edinburgh. The current contract for MS Victoria is due to end in January 2023. Figures that have been published by the Scottish Government show that more than 1,200 people are currently on the ship, so how will the Scottish Government ensure that the capacity that is provided by the ship is retained? Will she urgently look to expand the criteria for the largely unspent £50 million housing fund for local authorities, to include purchasing property from the market and working with agents to retrofit buildings? Will the First Minister confirm continued funding for the city’s welcome hub?

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that refugees from Ukraine have suitable accommodation on arrival in Scotland. (S6F-01560)

That is adding to delayed discharges. In September this year, more than 6,500 beds in NHS Lothian were occupied by patients who could have been sent home. That is not good enough. We need an NHS that is invested in and that the patients deserve.

We rightly take pride in our NHS and its founding principles of universality of care, respect and dignity. The last thing that we need is a two-tier service, but that is already happening in Scotland.

Today’s amendment from the SNP Government is appalling. It does not acknowledge the massive pressures that our NHS is facing, which are increasingly impacting on people’s health. Our hard-working NHS staff are under huge pressures, not just because of Covid, but because of long-term systemic understaffing and a lack of action to recruit, support and retain staff.

I will bring to the chamber’s attention the experience of my constituents in the Lothians. We see pressures right across our NHS, including in A and E, among GPs, and in dentistry and care services. Waiting times for accident and emergency services in NHS Lothian are damning. Since May this year and up until November, there was only one week during which the percentage of people who were seen within the Government’s four-hour target was more than 70 per cent. Last week, more than 1,700 people were stuck in A and E for more than four hours. Only 63 per cent of those attending NHS Lothian’s emergency departments were seen within four hours. In the same week, more than 200 people were stuck in A and E for more than 12 hours. Members should imagine for a moment what it is like for someone to wait for 12 hours when they have gone to accident and emergency.

Jackie Baillie’s focus on GPs was absolutely right—people are going to A and E because they cannot access their GPs. For the first time, GP surgeries have started contacting my office to talk about the real pressures that they are experiencing, which are exacerbated by the reduction in funding. I am told that, in NHS Lothian, we lost £9 million because GP services in Lothian were unable to recruit the GPs that we had lost. That money is not coming back.

Constituents have reached out: one had to wait a month to see his GP; another one said that he finds it extremely difficult to register with a GP, because there is a queue outside the practice every week; and, in Musselburgh, people have been experiencing issues with access to a GP for years, to such an extent that an independent review had to be set up.

Our front-line services are under massive pressures, with our GPs being

“depleted and demoralised”.

Those are not my words but those of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

It is not only GPs—the pressures on our NHS dentists in Lothian are shocking. A Labour freedom of information request revealed that, between 2021 and 2022, 92 dentists withdrew from NHS Lothian’s dental list. At the beginning of this year, out of 163 general dental practices in Lothian, only 51 confirmed that they are accepting new patients, with some only accepting children. That creates the two-tier system that I talked about at the start of my speech. Those who can afford it go private while the rest are forced to wait months, borrow money from friends or family to get private treatment, be in pain or lose teeth. That is not acceptable.

The First Minister has said that the founding principles of our NHS are “not up for discussion,” but we are already losing our NHS dentistry. That is not acceptable.

It was the Scottish Labour Party that launched the call for a national care service, so we welcome the proposals from the SNP to deliver it. However, the reality is that, rather than focusing on the experiences of our carers and providing decent terms and conditions across the country and career development opportunities, we are seeing SNP centralisation—

The staff do everything that they can—they need our support now.

It was right for the Lord Advocate to refer this question to the Supreme Court, and it is welcome that we have the legal clarity on the matter that the Scottish Government sought. I also put on record my thanks to the court for its speedy work in considering the case. It is crucial that we now focus on the problems that our country faces, from soaring bills to the crisis in our NHS. Indeed, Scottish Labour will debate those issues in the chamber this afternoon.

Cabinet secretary, there is not a majority for a referendum or for independence, but neither is there a majority for the status quo. People across Scotland and, indeed, the UK, want change. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to get rid of the economically incompetent and morally bankrupt Tory Government, and that the best way to do that would be to help to elect a Labour Government across the UK to bring economic growth, restore living standards, prioritise our public services and deliver a green new deal?

Amendment 149 would require the Scottish ministers to specify narrow areas in which data is able to be, or required to be, collected

“on an individual’s acquired gender and gender at birth”.

Those areas would be specified in the text of the bill and would initially include only

“access to and provision of healthcare”

and

“the commission of specific offences.”

Ministers would be able to modify the list through regulations.

The committee heard a wealth of evidence on data collection. It is clear that there is no example of best practice and that there are criticisms of all countries that have moved to self-ID laws. Senator Doherty gave evidence on Ireland’s experience of self-ID laws, and said that Ireland had

“a long way to go”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 22 June 2022; c 16.]

on data. The elements in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment are, therefore, crucial.

I will highlight two issues that my amendment 149 addresses. First, it would require Scottish ministers to specify where data must be collected on both

“acquired gender and gender at birth”

in narrow and specific areas. At present, public bodies follow guidance, but the terms “gender” and “sex” are frequently used interchangeably. The initial list of areas would be confined, first, to healthcare, because data plays a significant role in designing services and ensuring that everyone receives appropriate healthcare. The bill is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who apply for and obtain a GRC, which is likely to lead to a larger cohort of people who might need to access gender-based health services for the opposite sex.

For instance, a trans man might need to access a cervical smear cancer-screening test. It is essential, in order to protect the health and outcomes of trans people, that our NHS has robust data. Historically, we have—rightly—argued for an increasing focus on the importance of research on women’s health where there are differences from men’s health. One of the issues that came up in conversations that I had with trans constituents during discussions on the bill was a concern that there is no longitudinal research in Scotland that specifically monitors the long-term health of trans men and women to ensure that they get the support that they need throughout their lives. I want to flag up that issue at this stage, because I think that the Scottish Government needs to do the heavy lifting so that when we make it easier for people to transition as a result of the legislation, they can have confidence that our health service will be there for them.

The second issue that my amendment 149 addresses is about responding to concerns that have been raised with me on the small number of bad actors who might use the bill to exploit women and girls. I wanted to explore how we can, during discussion of the bill in Parliament, send a clear message to bad actors that the bill is not an opportunity for them.

I know that the issue was discussed in relation to an amendment by Russell Findlay earlier in the committee’s discussions at stage 2, and in relation to an amendment from Jamie Greene earlier today. To be clear, my intention is absolutely not to ban people who have committed specific offences from transitioning if they meet the criteria in the bill. However, I think that there should be capacity for organisations where vulnerable women need safe spaces to be aware of that.

Today, we have debated several amendments that highlight the need for clear and effective guidance for a range of organisations. We need to be clear that people who want to register as trans specifically in order to abuse women are predators, and I am sure that every MSP will want to ensure that we do everything that we think is necessary to protect women and girls.

A number of concerns have been raised with me using the example of Denmark, where instances of rape and sexual offences rose in the year after self-ID legislation was introduced. The critical issue there is that there is no data available that can prove or disprove whether self-ID legislation or something else was behind the rise, but I strongly believe that we need to explore the issue.

The cabinet secretary said that there is no evidence that we should be worried about that. I repeat that I am not suggesting that people should be prevented from transitioning if they have lived in their new gender, as set out in the bill. I want to be clear that my concerns are not about trans women, but about bad actors. I am concerned that there is a need to send them a clear message, and to ensure that there is accountability for people who commit abuse against women and girls, and who will take any opportunity to carry out their abuse.

My amendment 149 is partly a probing amendment, but I think that it is really important. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary what work she has committed to doing to ensure that sex offender notification would be acted on. We have heard from the cabinet secretary that the police would carry out monitoring; I want to get on the record an explanation of the extent to which that would involve prisons, safe spaces for women who have experienced sexual abuse or any other area in which she thinks research is needed. We know that there is new statutory action, as the cabinet secretary outlined, but I would really like more detail on that.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?