Chamber and committees

Thank you, that is very useful. I will give the last word on free ports to Fergus Mutch. Obviously, we do not know where the free ports will be just yet, but we hope that we will get an announcement soon. I guess that you are desperate for one in the north-east.

Thank you.

I agree that that is a risk in the bill. That is one of the problems with the bill, but how do you prove fraud if no evidence is required to obtain one of these certificates? That is something that several of us have been trying, unsuccessfully, to tackle in the amending stages—at stages 2 and 3. We are left with a bill that requires no evidence—just self-ID—so how, then, can a fraud be committed unless someone can prove that I have lied, and why would I own up to that? Somebody would have to prove it in court.

That is precisely the point. That was a good point well made by Mr Whittle, as I would expect.

All the amendments in the group are very well meaning and would work if obtaining a gender recognition certificate required a person to produce some evidence, because we could then disprove the evidence; however, we are not asking for that. Unfortunately, therefore, none of the amendments work, and I urge the members who lodged them not to move them.

You are supposed to speak to the Presiding Officer.

I want to steer Stephen Kerr back to Pam Gosal’s amendment, because I listened very carefully to Pam Gosal as she made a very passionate speech. I ask Mr Kerr whether he agrees with me that Pam Gosal’s amendment deals not so much with the things that Mr Kerr is talking about as specifically with medical examinations. Members may have got the impression that Pam Gosal was asking for special treatment for religious groups, but I do not think that she was. Would he agree with me that she was actually asking for us to respect the right of individuals—women, mainly—to ask for somebody of a specific gender to examine them? That is all that the amendment does.

There has been a really good debate on this group, with some very considered comments indeed. I will support most of the amendments in the group.

Of course, the point of having a debate at stage 3 is that people should listen and, if they hear things that persuade them, they can change their minds. That applies to cabinet secretaries as well, so I hope that the cabinet secretary has listened to the considered points that members across the chamber have been making and will perhaps revise her previously stated position on some of the amendments.

I was inspired to stand up just now by Jeremy Balfour. He read out something that a constituent sent him, and I have also been sent something by a constituent who has concerns about single-sex services for those who have suffered trauma resulting from particular forms of abuse or assault. They have post-traumatic stress disorder and have benefited from trauma services. I will just read out their message. They say:

“I know how important trust is within the trauma service, both in relation to who is there with you in waiting rooms or in counselling or therapy sessions. The Equality Act allows someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to be excluded from a single-sex service but the change in GRC changes the starting point.”

They add:

“Everyone with a GRC would be presumed to be permitted within the single-sex service because, as the judgment last week confirms, the GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Exclusion of those of a different biological sex but with a GRC is more difficult.”

I will end there, because I think that that is a powerful contribution. It is a point that has been made—maybe not in such personal terms—by many members. That is exactly the kind of thing that the cabinet secretary should be addressing and I hope that she does. I hope that she reflects on the debate and changes her mind.

Pauline McNeill raises the fundamental questions. The issue is that, if the bill passes as it is, we will have a system of self-ID. All that a person would have to do is make a declaration. I could declare that I was a woman. I could tell people now, “I’m a woman.” I am not a woman, but I could tell people that. If anyone said, “Prove it”, I would not have to prove it. Under this bill, all I would have to do is say, “I’m a woman” and apply for a certificate. No evidence would be required other than my saying, “I’m a woman.” If someone were to challenge that and say, “No, you are not. You have obtained that certificate by fraud,” surely they would have to prove that I was not a woman. However, I would not have had to present any evidence other than that of stating the fact—or not—that I was a woman. Therefore, how could a fraud have been committed?

People are looking puzzled by that. I am puzzled by the bill, let me tell you. We have a situation in which these well-meaning amendments—I see that Mr Kerr wishes to make an intervention.

I have listened carefully to Jackie Baillie, as I always do, and it sounds as though her sensible-sounding amendments in this group are pretty fundamental to Labour’s case. If the amendments—and amendment 130 in particular—are not agreed to, will that mean that Labour will not support the bill?

Yes, that is correct. That would be a deterrent. Where is the risk here? There is very little risk, because of the situation that I have outlined, which is that no evidence is required to obtain the certificate. If the police were to get involved, how would they be able to prove anything?