Chamber and committees

Thank you. That was really helpful. It is very much what the Law Society of Scotland said when we discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago.

I was hoping to bring in Sarah Millar, who talked about possible confusion, given the sheer range of legislative change. I note that you also highlighted food safety, Sarah. Can you comment on that?

From reading your submissions and listening to you today, it is clear that 2023 would be a massive cliff edge and that 2026 would still be a cliff edge, because it is not that far off.

What do the witnesses think about taking the opposite approach, which I think one of you mentioned, whereby, instead of dumping everything, we keep everything and then decide what we want to get rid of for flexibility? That would be a much more prioritised and much less risky approach, which would give you the opportunity to seek opportunities rather than taking the risk of putting environmental health, human health or animal health at risk as a result of huge uncertainty.

Do other witnesses want to come in? Donna Fordyce talked about a cliff edge with losing the sunset clauses.

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.

That is a very important caveat. Reflecting on the evidence about the sheer scale of the number of pieces of legislation that there are to review, that would let stakeholders and advisers prioritise where they want to take the opportunity, rather than face the panic that people will clearly face very shortly.

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?

Not moved—[Inaudible.]—research considered by the cabinet secretary in order to talk about it.

Amendment 149 not moved.

Section 16—Further modification of enactments

Amendment 16 not moved.

Section 16 agreed to.

After section 16

Amendment 26 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].