Chamber and committees

Mr Lyon, communities were very fearful and anxious about the whole process, and they still are. There is no question but that they feel that there might be loss, reduction or diminution of services that they expect.

Can you give assurances to the communities that are served by HIAL airports that there will not be a reduction or diminution of services or aviation safety resulting from roll-out of the new air traffic control system and procedures? As I said, people are still very fearful about what is planned and what will happen.

Supporting those services and ensuring that communities have them is the crux of the matter. What lessons have you learned from the whole fiasco, which has had communities and MSPs up in arms? What have you learned from dealing with that over the past five years, and how can you put lessons that you might have learned into practice in order to ensure that there will be practical action for communities who are still anxious about what might come out of the process?

I am delighted that a number of local authorities responded, although it was only a small number of the total number of local authorities. However, they captured some of the relevant areas, and there is no doubt that the pandemic and its impact is one of those. I suggest that we refer the petition to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, in the context of its wider consideration of local government finances and the post-pandemic recovery.

I very much concur with that. As the convener indicated, it is a difficult situation, but it exists and we need more clarity on it. What has been suggested would give some of that clarity at this stage, so that the committee can then consider what gaps there may be in the process and ensure that there is an opportunity to look at what has happened in England and Wales with reference to some of the issues, because that is very relevant to the petitioner and the issues that she was trying to raise.

Vic, do you want to add anything to that?

My second question touches on the impact on women and girls, which is probably the area of the bill that has caused the most controversy. You have touched on the debate in social media and the media, and in his initial statement, Colin Macfarlane talked about fact, evidence and truth.

This aspect of the bill has provoked the most opposition, because of the threat that women and girls feel when it comes to women-only spaces, such as the changing room, the refuge, the hospital ward or the toilet. Those are the areas that people have given as examples. At present, the Equality Act 2010 allows for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces. With reference to those current provisions, and the exclusions that are already in place, what is the expectation that anything will change under the bill that we are discussing? How will the application of the bill’s provisions have an effect and impact on women and girls? Is anything going to change as a result of some of that impact? Perhaps Colin Macfarlane can unravel some of that.

Good morning, and thank you for your comments and evidence to date. I will start with a question on the legal recognition of non-binary people. You have already touched on that, but it would be good to get more of a flavour of your views.

In some of your presentations, you have talked about non-binary people being let down by the bill. The bill does not include legal recognition of non-binary people, but the Scottish Government has set up a non-binary working group to identify some of the issues. It would be good to get your views on the legal recognition of non-binary people and how you see that progressing.

So your submission, including the answer that you just gave, is that the bill does not pose a threat to women and girls.

Melanie Field, in your opening statement you talked about the harm and distress on both sides of the debate and how the changes could have an impact. I go back to the women and girls issue, because that is where we perceive most of the harm and distress to be focused.

There is a code of practice that ensures that trans people are supported according to their gender. The EHRC’s letter of 22 January to the cabinet secretary mentioned data collection issues, difficulties related to

“participation and drug testing in competitive sport”

and

“measures to address barriers facing women”.

Those issues have been invoked in the debate, and that is where some of the hostility has appeared. Can you clarify why those specific issues were mentioned in the letter to the cabinet secretary? What implications are there for the collection of information about the individuals who will be affected?

Concerns have been raised about the possible impact on the aim of increasing women’s participation and representation in public life, because of the dubiety or discord that exists. Is it possible that that outcome could be affected?