Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank committee members for their feedback and the discussion on my amendments. I take on board in particular the constructive comments from Fulton MacGregor and Karen Adam regarding some of the specific detail.

I disagree, in a broader sense, that the amendment goes against the principles of the bill. The bill as it stands significantly liberalises the process—rightly so, in the demedicalisation that it achieves. Amendment 45 is about putting a further safeguard in place in the bill as it stands, so I do not agree that it goes against its principles.

That being said, I am very keen to look for a sensible centre ground that can command the broadest possible public support. I still think that there is work to be done in this area. Taking on board those comments from colleagues, I ask members to allow me to continue to pursue conversations with colleagues in committee and elsewhere, so at this stage I ask the committee’s leave to withdraw amendment 45.

Amendments 45 and 48 seek to address concerns of the broad public regarding the robustness of the legislation. We are absolutely clear that Scotland requires a better system for trans people. There has already been discussion this morning around bad-faith actors, and I believe that the proposed system could be improved in order to command broader public support across Scotland. The system must be robust for trans people and non-trans people. In particular, it must recognise the very real concerns of women regarding the possibility of abuse of the system.

The bill is not merely an amendment to the 2004 act. Demedicalisation, which Labour supports, is a profound change and opens up the process considerably. The Government recognises that and that is one of the core purposes of the bill. As such, it requires a different kind of safeguard against those who might abuse the legislation. As it stands, a balance must be struck and I believe that more could be done to achieve that.

Amendments 45 and 48 are modelled on the process for obtaining a passport, which is a well-understood and commonly respected process for changing personal details that applies to every one of us. When someone changes that documentation it requires a signature from a person of good standing whom they know. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that an application is made as part of the community, rather than as a solitary individual.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for engaging on the amendment. The cabinet secretary has indicated that the statutory declaration is a sufficient safeguard. I ask her to put her thinking on that point on the record at this stage. I believe that that reasoning has not featured in any of the discussion of the bill, its consultation, ministerial correspondence, the stage 1 report or the stage 1 debate. At this point, it would be good to hear the cabinet secretary’s rationale.

I have concerns that a statutory declaration on its own could be seen as transactional because it amounts to a small fee being paid to a lawyer to witness a signature and say that current identity documents have been produced—it is not about knowing someone. The broader effect of amendments 45 and 48 would be to raise the bar for bad-faith actors and would increase the confidence for trans people seeking recognition.

I am keen to hear from other members and the cabinet secretary on the sufficiency of the statutory declaration in the bill as it is proposed and on the rationale for a passport-style system being too high a bar for the GRC process yet being appropriate for the process of changing personal details for every member of the public.

I move amendment 45.

Councillor Buchanan, is there a risk that children’s services could become defined by the idea of care rather than necessarily by work around prevention?

[Inaudible.]—the list provided to the committee is not exhaustive, I think. It includes the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Children Act 1975, the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984, the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007, the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. There is interaction with a very complex area of primary legislation. Is it possible to deal properly with that in secondary legislation?

CELCIS’s speciality is looked-after children. You have produced some fantastic work in that area, and I give credit to your staff for that. However, my concern in relation to that specialism is whether we can capture the breadth of children’s services that we have touched on in our questions. Is the fact that you have been commissioned to do this research a pointer to a bit of an inherent bias towards the care end of the spectrum rather than the breadth of children’s services?

And will you draw in expertise around education, mental health and other areas?

We are looking at a national care service, which is potentially most directly related to articles 9 and 16 of the UNCRC, which are about the protection of family life in relation to decisions that the state might make. I have a question about the breadth of the transfer of powers and your reflections on that.

We could say that social work and children’s services protect the rights in articles 26 to 29 and 32, on access to education, health and wellbeing. Given that a wide range of services are being transferred, are you concerned that some of those areas could be lost or neglected through an overbearing focus on care, albeit that it is incredibly important?

You talked about prevention. The idea of prevention in relation to adult care services is analogous, but that would open up the national care service to issues around adult housing. Prevention for children seems to have been pulled into that position, but prevention for adults has not. I understand your “frameworky” comment, but do you have a view on that?

The witnesses may feel that they have already covered this, but, for completeness, is there any other relevant existing primary legislation that might interact with the bill that needs to be considered?

I note that Fraser McKinlay is nodding at that.