Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that.

I will come back to Professor Sullivan. You talked earlier about medical records and the need to align medical checks, screening and those kinds of things with the right bodies, essentially. We heard from Robin White that the process of recording that information in medical records can already happen, and that the process for getting a gender recognition certificate actually has nothing to do with those records. I am wondering why you think that that is relevant if the bill that we are considering is about the process for getting a GRC, rather than how medical records are recorded?

Thank you very much, Victor. That was helpful.

I want to explore in more detail the connection or otherwise that you see between medical or psychological assessment and, as you have highlighted, the removal of gender dysphoria as a pathology. There has been discussion about whether there should be gatekeeping or medical or psychological assessment in this process. Some witnesses have suggested that some of that should be retained in order to ensure that the mechanism is not open to abuse. Can you comment on that?

Thank you, that answers my question. I will put a similar question to the SHRC. We have heard a lot about the requirement or otherwise to remove the gender dysphoria diagnosis and the gender reassignment assessment panel. I do not know which of you wants to answer this question, which is about the element of risk management that Victor Madrigal-Borloz talked about.

If we accept what I understand is your position, which is that we move to self-declaration and remove the panel and the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, how do we best manage in the Scottish context the risks that Victor identified around potential abuse and misunderstanding of what rights are being conferred?

Being mindful of an earlier comment about what the reform that we are scrutinising seeks to do and what it does not do, your remarks are well made.

Good morning, and thank you both for being with us this morning and for the evidence that you have provided in your opening statements and in writing.

I have a couple of questions to ask, and I will start with Alice Sullivan. I know that other members are going to come on to talk more about data, so I am going to ask questions about the need or the case for change. Alice, in your view, is there a requirement for this reform in the first place? You talked a lot about the implications for data, so do you see there being a need for change if we can get some of the data stuff right? I appreciate that other members will ask about the data in a moment.

That links to the point that you have made a few times about visions for places and ensuring that people who live, work, study and play in places are involved in generating a vision for them.

We heard about a couple of challenges with that. One of them is the lack of expertise and capacity, to which a potential solution would be to have a central resource of expertise and support that could be mobilised to different parts of the country at different times to support communities to develop. There have been discussions about that; I am not sure that proceeding with it is the settled view of the committee, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on it.

One of the other challenges we have heard about, which is linked to that, is that when funding is available for visioning projects it is often short term. Where funding has been successful, projects have been given a pot of money without the provider knowing what the end product will be. On such projects there is trust and the community is given freedom to run with them—sometimes they do so for 10 years. That would be a marked shift in how we support community visioning projects. What is your perspective on that?

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

I want to explore a couple of areas, the first of which is community engagement. In your opening remarks, you said that you see town centres as being at the heart of decision making. What do you mean by that? How can we make it happen?

Thank you for that. You have talked about engaging with the community, but how we define the community matters. There will be competing and conflicting definitions or qualifying criteria, in that respect.

One of the things that we have heard about is a potential lack of capacity in some areas to ensure community engagement and direct community involvement in planning and, indeed, democracy. The situation varies considerably across Scotland. What possibilities for supporting capacity building in, say, community councils or development trusts can the committee think about? Are there different ways of bringing people in? How do we ensure that we engage with the community as a whole, and not just with those who have vested interests, loud voices or deep pockets?

Thank you; that was helpful. There is a tension between financial support and other support for capital projects, as you mentioned. There is also something about financing and supporting the process of determining projects in the first place, which is often where there are gaps or weaknesses. I will leave it there for now.

I know that my colleagues around the table will come back on certain points that you made in that answer.

I will turn to Karon Monaghan. I listened to your opening remarks and I am interested in your thoughts on the medicalisation process. Do you agree that medicalisation of gender dysphoria is problematic and do you see the shift away from requiring that diagnosis as necessary?