Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry, Louise—I am reading Ruth Maguire’s mind here. We are still looking for some examples. If it is helpful, your council colleague Fiona Duncan is looking to come in.

Ross McGuffie, are you happy to carry on?

Who would like to go first? Perhaps we could hear from Ross McGuffie, followed by Vicky Irons. I see that Vicky Irons has her hand up, so we will go to her first. I am sorry if I confused our broadcasting colleagues there.

Fiona Duncan also wants to comment in response to the previous question.

Who would you like to respond to that?

Fiona Duncan wants to come in on that point, too.

We move to questions from Ruth Maguire.

I refer particularly to the comments made by Fulton MacGregor and by the cabinet secretary describing the amendments as being against the principles of the bill. We, too, want to safeguard trans people and to ensure that they can go through the process in as streamlined and secure a way as possible. We do not want to make life more challenging for those people. I make that clear.

As I said, a person can go through a range of life experiences in two years. Those might include changes in schooling or in the family, moving to a different part of the country and puberty, to name but a few. I think that having safeguards in place will ensure that the right decisions are made. We are talking about life-altering decisions, which are not reversible. We must look long and hard at that.

Given the comments that we have heard, and following feedback from discussions with my colleagues, I will press only amendment 2 today.

Good morning. This group of amendments is on retention of current application process and evidence required in support of applications. The amendments would bring the legislation back to the status quo and—importantly—retain current safeguards. They would mean that all the existing provisions with regard to gender recognition certificates in the 2004 act would be retained, so the 2004 act would operate in the same way that it does now. The only difference would be that an application could be made to the registrar general, but that would, under these amendments, still need the approval of the gender recognition panel, so the effect would be the same.

The aim of keeping the current legislation in place is to protect vulnerable young people when it comes to life-altering decisions, while protecting women and girls from bad-faith actors who might take advantage of the proposed changes in the bill.

Amendment 2 would retain the gender recognition panel specifically, as there is not enough evidence to support its removal. Although Conservative members recognise and acknowledge the issues that some people have had with the panel, we believe that, overall, the panel provides a system of safeguarding and gatekeeping. We also believe that more evidence should be required before it is removed, and that there is currently just not enough evidence to suggest that the registrar general alone should be responsible for the administration of the gender recognition certificates.

Amendment 3 would retain the need for a medical diagnosis. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria can distinguish between bad actors. Women’s Rights Network Scotland has told us that removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis could lead to an abuse of the system by bad-faith actors, in particular, predatory men, as we have heard from colleagues.

Amendment 4 would retain the need for a person to have lived for two years in the acquired gender and for the applicant to be at least 18 years old. We believe that three months is too little time in which to take such an important decision. Distressed people will be able to make lifelong decisions before medical professionals have had the chance to help them, especially when coupled with the lack of a gender dysphoria diagnosis. We all know that a lot can happen in two years, particularly when you are young and growing.

The Scottish Government’s decision to set a three-month period is entirely arbitrary and lacks evidence. Furthermore, a 16-year-old is too young to obtain a GRC, and allowing them to make a life-altering decision after a short period could have negative consequences that are not accounted for in the bill.

Amendments 5 to 17 are all consequential to the proposed reversion back to the status quo. They seek to remove a long list of sections—sections 5 to 16—and the schedule from the bill. That is necessary because my first three amendments, which would remove sections 2, 3 and 4 from the bill, would mean that all those subsequent sections of the bill would no longer be required. For example, the sections on “Further provision about applications and certificates” are void when the status quo is retained, because those sections change the provisions of the bill that I wish to remove. I hope that that clarifies the position for the committee.

Convener, the amendments reflect a position that is not mine alone. A poll has indicated that only a minority of Scots support removing the safeguards: only 19 per cent of Scots support reducing the age at which someone can obtain a GRC from 18 to 16; 25 per cent support cutting the waiting period from two years to three months; and 26 per cent support removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis. The current safeguards in law are important. Along with the majority of the Scottish public, I recognise that and want those safeguards to be retained. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 2.

Who would like to go first? Claire, are you able to respond to that?