Seòmar agus comataidhean

We heard many of the witnesses express very grave concerns about the provisions in the bill as it stands that will expand the definition of a “person with an interest” who could apply for a GRC to be revoked. That would substantially increase the risk that someone who disapproved of a trans person’s gender recognition certificate application would seek to use the courts to have that certificate revoked. Such vexatious or malicious complaints to the sheriff court to revoke a GRC, simply because someone does not accept the trans status of the GRC applicant, should not be enabled. If such applications for revocation ever happen, they should be viewed as vexatious and/or malicious and treated accordingly.

One mechanism to reduce the opportunity to make vexatious or malicious applications for revocation is to clearly and narrowly define who a person with an interest is. The 2004 act defines a person with an interest quite narrowly as a spouse, the registrar general or the secretary of state. My amendment 97 would replicate that narrower definition to include a spouse, civil partner, the registrar general and the secretary of state. The aim is to limit the likelihood of unsupportive family members, or others who disapprove of a trans person’s right to be who they are, using the mechanism to challenge a GRC.

My amendment 95 seeks to put in place a step before any revocation application gets to the sheriff court, by requiring it to go through the registrar general’s office first. The registrar general would then determine whether it was appropriate to escalate such a revocation application to the courts. However, I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 130 is better than mine, so I will not press my amendment 95 and will instead support hers.

On the penalties for those who seek to revoke a GRC for vexatious or malicious reasons, my amendment 96 is, essentially, a probing amendment in an attempt to have a wider conversation before stage 3 to tighten up that bit of the bill. I will not move amendment 96 as, again, I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 132 covers that aspect more effectively. Nonetheless, I consider that we need further conversation to make it absolutely clear that malicious or vexatious attempts to revoke a gender recognition certificate will not be allowed, and will be taken very seriously when they happen.

I move amendment 95.

I find Michael Marra’s amendments 45 and 48 to be very problematic.

One of the key principles of the bill is that of self-declaration: that trans people should be able to get a gender recognition certificate by a process of self-identification. More than two thirds of us agreed to that in the stage 1 debate a couple of weeks ago. However, amendment 48 would require a person from a listed recognised profession who has known the applicant for at least two years to countersign the trans person’s application. That is fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bill is based on—the principle of self-declaration. In addition, it would create additional barriers to legal recognition for some trans people.

I say for the avoidance of doubt that statutory declarations are not something that you can make to a friend or a neighbour on a whim. They are sworn statements made under oath and witnessed by a justice of the peace, local councillor or notary public, and making a false statutory declaration carries a sentence of up to two years in prison. That is already a significant and serious step. In my opinion, the opinion of many who work with and support trans people, and that of trans people themselves, there is no value in requiring an additional step through countersignatories.

Michael Marra compares the matter with the passport application process, but passport applications do not require a statutory declaration; they simply require a witness. It is not appropriate for an outsider to have to confirm a person’s gender identity.

It could also be difficult for more socially isolated trans people to find someone in a recognised profession that is listed in amendment 48 who has known them for two years. I do not think that that should prevent them from obtaining legal recognition of who they are.

I strongly urge colleagues to vote against amendments 45 and 48.

I have nothing further to add, and I will withdraw amendment 95.

Amendment 95, by agreement, withdrawn.

It might surprise colleagues that I want to speak to this group of amendments, but I will be supporting amendment 14.

Taken on its own, amendment 14 removes the specific criminal offence that the bill introduces of making a false declaration in relation to one’s trans status. We heard from several people and organisations in evidence sessions, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Amnesty International, JustRight Scotland and Engender, that that offence is unnecessary. It is already a criminal offence under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 to make a false statutory declaration. The introduction of a new offence risks unnecessarily criminalising children.

However, there is another reason not to have the offence: having an offence that names trans people specifically potentially makes an already marginalised and vulnerable group more of a target for litigation.

Therefore, for reasons that are very different from those of Sue Webber, and that come from a very different place of principle and value, I will vote in favour of the removal of section 14 from the bill.

Thanks; that is helpful, and it ties in to my second question. You spoke about the important role of REPs and of using the local knowledge that they provide to identify sectors and clusters that could benefit. However, there is potential for tension between the local, regional and national levels on both investment and identification of sectors, in particular when we try to match that work up with some of the skills gap-identification work that you spoke about.

You said that the skills inquiry will report next spring, but can you give us any indication of whose priorities will win out? The types of investment and approaches to skills and supply chain issues for an energy economy are very different to the investment and skills focus that we would need for a hospitality economy, for instance, and there are going to be distinct geographical tensions in that. How do you see those conflicts and tensions being resolved?

I have a couple of other questions, but perhaps I can ask those offline.

Good morning, minister. Thank you for being here, and thank you for what you have said so far.

You have partly answered my first question, which is about investment zones. In the past 12 hours or so, it has been announced that they are likely to be scrapped.

Various discussions are taking place about what might replace them, such as urban regeneration plans and so on. I appreciate that it is a very moveable feast. What will your priorities be in your discussions with the UK Government around the consequences for Scotland? If we are not going to have investment zones in the low-tax, low-regulation space, what will your priorities be with regard to equivalent support in Scotland?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us, minister, and thank you for your opening words.

I hear very strongly the commitment to human rights and equalities budgeting and to embedding and mainstreaming that across all processes. The holistic approach that you talk about is, of course, important if we are going to see genuine action in the prevention agenda across the elements that you have highlighted.

I am interested in how we make connections between the equality impact assessments that are done once budgets are determined and the outcomes. Often with equality impact assessments, it seems that a desktop process is gone through. That has meaning, but it always looks back the way. What is your assessment of how we are doing in doing that as a continuous thing? As we start to talk about the budget that we will agree in the next few months, how are assessments around equalities and inclusion, for example, being done now so that we do not have to look back at things when everything is done in February?

Sorry, Pam.