Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answers, and I note some of the concerns about competency in relation to amendment 115. However, I believe that we need to send a signal that asylum seekers are welcome to apply for the process. I wonder, therefore, whether the cabinet secretary will consider the requirement in Tess White’s amendment 116 that the applicant intends to be here for longer than a year. Most asylum seekers, I imagine, would make that declaration and believe it to be true at the time. On that basis, will the cabinet secretary consider supporting that amendment?

I thank the members who have lodged amendments. I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. In short, there are merits to many of the amendments before us, but I have concerns about some. I hope that we can work on those together, ahead of stage 3.

Carol Mochan’s amendment 117, as she has highlighted, seeks to address concerns that some people have. It would require free, confidential and balanced support to be provided, at their request, for 16 and 17-year-olds applying for a GRC. That would be really important for some people. Carol Mochan’s amendment seeks to ensure that there is support for people who need it. Amendment 117 would give 16 and 17-year-old applicants the opportunity to access support on their terms. That is a positive way of supporting young trans people to access their rights and is distinct from other amendments in the group, in particular amendment 38, in the name of Christine Grahame. On that basis, if those amendments are pressed, I will have to abstain.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 124 adds the coercion of 16 and 17-year-olds as a factor allowing for the rejection of an application for a GRC, along with a presumption that 16 and 17-year-olds do have the capacity to understand the process. All those elements support capacity and the influence of coercion, as my colleague Martin Whitfield has highlighted. I believe that that could be helpful and should be considered further at stage 3, and I urge the Government to continue working with my colleague to do that.

I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 31, because it delays the act. Trans people have already waited long enough for reform.

I thank the cabinet secretary for setting out her position on the record. I am satisfied with the way that she has described what she is trying to do. I was seeking to make the provision not narrower, but broader, but I understand the cabinet secretary’s rationale, so I will not press amendment 126 and I will vote for her amendments.

Amendment 126, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 127 moved—[Russell Findlay]

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for the helpful conversations that we have had about my amendments in the group. I press amendment 121.

I have lodged amendment 115 because I do not think that it is fair to exclude asylum seekers from the process. My amendment explicitly adds them to the bill, and I encourage members to vote for it for that reason.

I move amendment 115.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I appreciate that.

I am tempted to press the amendment, because I want to put on the record the strength of feeling that there is to include asylum seekers in the bill. I would welcome further discussions at stage 3 if the issue is not addressed in the committee today.

I press amendment 115.

Similarly, I put on record that I will be voting against the amendments in this group, on the basis that they undermine the purpose and the principle of the legislation that we are discussing today. I will be voting against amendments 2, 3 to 17 and 26.

As I said earlier, amendment 154 sets out that before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration, signed by a justice of the peace, a solicitor, a notary public, a commissioner for oaths or any other authorised professional, that they are telling the truth and are fulfilling the criteria in the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. My amendment 122, in the previous group, set out that it was an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration that is false.

My amendment 154, which is yet to come, sets out that, before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration, which must be signed by a justice of the peace, a solicitor, a notary public, a commissioner for oaths or any other authorised professional, that they are telling the truth and fulfil the criteria that are set out in the act. My amendment 122 states:

“it is an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration ... which is false”.

I believe that, together with amendment 154, my amendments are crucial to help to build support for the bill.

Statutory declarations are serious legal documents that carry great weight, and the public have confidence in them in other situations. As I have said on the record in the past, we need reform, with a law that works for trans people, is administrative in nature, and carries the confidence of the public with it. Statutory declarations, which are signed by a respected group of people, are a well-known mechanism in which we trust, and they could help people to understand that the process is serious.

The Government has not made that part of the process, including its seriousness, as clear to the public as is necessary. My amendments seek to address that. Amendments 121 and 122 make it clear that, if at the time that someone made a declaration, they did not intend to comply with the criteria, they would be committing a serious criminal offence.

I move amendment 121.

Good morning to the panel. Thanks very much for your answers so far and also for the information that you submitted in advance, which was very helpful.

I want to talk a little bit about co-production, and I will refer to the submission from Inclusion Scotland. Dr Nolan, I remember that, around the time when health and social care partnerships were developed, a large number of disabled people’s organisations convened what we called a war cabinet to talk about concerns with co-production and getting disabled people and service users a vote on boards to make decisions. Can you say a little bit about the importance of users having a voice in determining the outcomes for social care, as well as the strategic decisions that are taken about it? You said that a lack of co-ordination and co-production could “defeat success” for the national care service. Could you expand on that and talk to us about how you characterise its development so far?