Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are 16 transgender people in custody across the whole estate at the moment.

The committee will know that applicants are currently required to provide evidence that they have been living in their acquired gender for two years before applying, which we think is unnecessarily long. We have heard a range of views from stakeholders and respondents to the consultation, as has the committee. Some people feel that there is no need for any period of time; others are anxious that it should be longer. We are trying to find a balance.

The three-month period for living in the acquired gender represents our view of what is balanced and proportionate. It provides, on one hand, assurance that the applicant has for a time been living in the acquired gender before applying, without, on the other hand, imposing lengthy barriers.

I know that the committee heard from witnesses that applying for legal gender recognition is often the end of a process in which the person has made other changes, perhaps to documentation including their passport and driving licence. However, in the round, the three-month period helps to demonstrate the applicant’s commitment to living in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives. It is also important to note that an applicant who has been living in their acquired gender for at least three months—they might have been living in their acquired gender for many years—can affirm that in their statutory declaration, so there would not be a delay imposed on their application. In essence, they would affirm that they had been living in their acquired gender for three months or longer. I hope that that gives some reassurance that there would not be undue delay.

I have set out why I think that the three-month period provides a balanced and proportionate response to concerns that we would go from a period of two years to no time at all. We feel that three months is not unduly onerous. Many people who have been living in their acquired gender for quite some time—that will probably be the vast majority of applicants—will be able simply to affirm that. There will, therefore, be no further delay for those people. Obviously, the Government will reflect on any recommendations that the committee makes, but I feel that it is important to try and keep a balance in the bill.

Yes.

I understand the concerns, and I understand how important language is. The term “acquired gender” is the language that is used in the 2004 act and other existing legislation to describe legally changing your gender. We have used that language partly to ensure that the provisions that are being inserted in the 2004 act will work with the rest of the act, without the need to change references to acquired gender in provisions that are not being amended, because doing that would clearly be more complicated. Obviously, we will look at the committee’s recommendations, but for the purposes of legal clarity and understanding, it is appropriate to use language that is consistent with existing legislation.

I am also not clear—the academics to whom you refer were not clear, either—what alternative language could be used to accurately describe legally changing your gender.

However, it is important to say that we do not generally use the term “acquired gender” more widely to describe the experience of trans people. We will ensure that guidance and descriptions in respect of the process use language that is clear, respectful and inclusive.

The bill lays out who is able to challenge. That includes a spouse, a child and so on.

We are very clear that the bill has no impact whatsoever on the Equality Act 2010 provisions, including the exceptions. Everything that stands now will stand in the same way after the bill is enacted.

Of course, we know that the EHRC has updated its guidance. That guidance, which is for public bodies to use, is on the application of the provisions under the 2010 act and how that works in practice, because there are complexities in that. There are complexities now, and there will be the same complexities after the bill is enacted, so that guidance is important. However, to be clear, there will be absolutely no changes to the exceptions.

The issue does not relate directly to the bill—you alluded to that. It is about healthcare, whether we are talking about now or after the bill is passed.

Let me say a couple of things about that. The NHS tries to give a person their wish, where it can, if they want a man or a woman to provide care, whether we are talking about personal care that social care staff deliver or a smear test or other procedure. If a person specifically requests a doctor or nurse of the same gender, for whatever reason, the NHS will of course try to accommodate their wish as far as possible. Obviously, there are never any guarantees, given the availability of staff with the appropriate skills to manage the patient’s condition. I know, for example, that it can be quite difficult when a man requests male social care staff, because the workforce is predominantly female. It can be difficult to grant such wishes.

The patient rights charter sets out the preferences, culture, beliefs, values and level of understanding that will be taken into account and respected when using NHS services, which means that people’s wishes will be accommodated where possible. Moreover, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published statutory codes of practice and guidance to help employers understand the relevant issues including some of the issues that you have raised. There is also the genuine occupational requirement exception, which can provide that a person appointed must not be a trans person where there is an occupational requirement, due to the nature or context of the work. There are a lot of what I guess might be described as safeguards in this area. Finally, the Scottish Human Rights Commission mentioned in its evidence the fair amount of case law that predates the bill and balances religious rights and the right to freedom from discrimination.

In the case of someone who did not disclose, I would have thought that that would be something for the employer to deal with. We are talking about very hypothetical situations here, but I cannot imagine that most people, particularly those in the caring professions, would not want to do anything other than respect the person’s wishes. That would be my view. I think that employers, guided by the guidance from the EHRC, have probably been dealing with such issues for many years, and the aim, particularly in the NHS, will have been to ensure that people’s wishes are respected as far as possible.

The different systems are just the processes for obtaining a GRC. The fundamental rights that protect transgender people, which are reserved under the 2010 act, remain the same. They will be the same on the day before the bill becomes legislation and on the day after it becomes legislation—if it does, as I hope it will. There is no change to any of those provisions in the 2010 act. That is why we have written back, asking for clarification of what the EHRC means, because we do not understand what it means.

Are you talking about what the NRS would gather or about what we might gather through annual reporting?