Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I agree that trans rights are human rights. What we are trying to achieve here is about recognising—and I think that this was put across strongly by the Scottish Human Rights Commission—that everybody’s human rights are all-important collectively and should not be seen as somehow in opposition to one another. That is an important point.

On the public discourse, we have already had a discussion this morning about whether there should have been more time. I take your point that you feel that there has been too much time. I think that we have probably landed somewhere in the middle. It has been well discussed and well consulted on and we have now got to the position where we can look at the detail and make decisions.

It is very difficult to change the public discourse on social media and in some sections of the mainstream media. In some places, it has perhaps become a wedge issue against a tiny number of people who are extremely vulnerable and really just want to get on with their lives, which is why the bill is important.

In terms of the public discourse going forward, once the legislation is in place, people will see that those it affects are the tiny number of people it directly affects—in other words, those who are going to obtain a gender recognition certificate that can reflect how they have been living their lives anyway. We can see that in practice in the other countries that have done this, which are growing in number—I cited Spain, which is now looking at it as well—none of the concerns, some of which were expressed in those countries as well, have come to fruition. That should give us some confidence that people may be assured by that.

Finally, as I said in earlier, I am not sure that what is in social media really reflects where public opinion is on this matter. The BBC poll that I mentioned showed that young people, who are overwhelmingly more supportive of the trans community in all the polls that are done, and women are more supportive. That is perhaps food for thought. Some of the polling that has been done might show us a different view from the one that social media would have us believe.

We will continue to do this. If there are other things that we as a Government can do to improve the public discourse, of course we will do them. If the committee has any suggestions in that regard, I am happy to look at them.

I think that, for consistency and fairness, the reflection period should be the same. From memory, I think that the children’s commissioner was probably against having a reflection period at all, but I also think that the commissioner would be quite firmly against having some differential in the reflection period.

If we agree that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate through statutory declaration, those people should be treated as having the same maturity as everyone else has when it comes to the reflection period. Having said that, there will be the additional guidance and support structure around 16 and 17-year-olds. We think that that is the more appropriate additional support, which someone over the age of 18 might not require.

An issue of which we are mindful is people who are nearing the end of life. In those circumstances, three months could, frankly, be a long time. We are mindful of the importance for many people of their death certificate reflecting how they have lived their life. If the committee made a recommendation in that regard, I would be completely sympathetic to that.

That removal, and the separating out of legal and medical elements, are important. The redefinition by the World Health Organization is important and several countries have changed their processes.

We have heard evidence from people who have gone through the current system under the 2004 act that it is very demeaning, that the gender recognition panel is a group of people who are unknown to them, and that it is a difficult and onerous process. Therefore, we believe that the time is right to move to what is seen as international best practice, as many other countries have done.

I know that the committee has considered practice in several other countries that have changed their position, including Ireland, which is one of our nearest neighbours. Over the past few days, Spain has announced that it will be moving in that direction. We think that the change is in line with best practice and along the lines that are recommended by international bodies.

We just need to understand what the EHRC’s concern is, because the rights of transgender people across the UK are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, whether or not someone has a GRC. The fact that we are changing the process for obtaining a GRC does nothing to alter those fundamental rights that are enshrined in the 2010 act, so we do not understand the relevance, really. Those rights exist no matter what process a country has for obtaining a GRC.

I do not think that there is evidence to support that. In fact, Close the Gap has provided evidence that does not support such concerns.

The numbers are so small that I do not think that they will have a statistical impact. As for the gender pay gap, the work that is going on through Close the Gap and the work on fair pay that the Scottish Government is leading, I do not think that the bill will have any impact at all on those—or, indeed, on public life. As I said, the number of people we are talking about is very small.

The Scottish Prison Service is clear at the moment that having a GRC does not give someone any enhanced rights over where they are placed; that is all down to the risk assessment. Again, I cannot comment on other jurisdictions and whether that is different in England—that is obviously not a matter for me—but the Scottish Prison Service’s position is very clear. The review is to look at whether there is anything that the SPS should be doing in addition to what it is currently doing around the management of trans gender prisoners. The evidence could not be clearer that the Prison Service already places people where it thinks that it is appropriate for them to be placed, whether or not they have a GRC.

I do. I reiterate that the bill does not change any of that.

In those circumstances, the simplest and best way is, in essence, to take the same approach and to submit an application under the same process. The offence is about knowingly making a false statutory declaration. In other words, if at the time of making a statutory declaration, you intended to live permanently in your acquired gender, you would not be committing an offence if, for whatever reason, your intention to do so subsequently changed at some point in your life.

You can draw a comparison with marriage, which involves a lifelong commitment and a certain intention at the time. Sometimes, though, that relationship comes to an end. That does not make the marriage itself false; it is just that someone has reached a different point in their life.

I think that that is the simplest way of enabling someone who changes their view at some point in their life to go through the process. I should say that it does not happen very often; Peter Hope-Jones might have been about to say this, but the evidence from other countries is that a very small number of people do it. We are not talking about lots of people.

The requirement in the bill is that the applicant must be the subject of a Scottish birth or adoption register entry or ordinarily resident in Scotland, as you said. Applicants will have to make a statutory declaration to that effect. As you will know, “ordinarily resident” means that the person lives in Scotland with only short periods away. Residence must be voluntary, for settled purposes and lawful. That is a common law concept, which is routinely used in statute; it is not particular to the bill but is understood in many statutes.

It is worth reiterating that, if someone knowingly makes a false statutory declaration that they are ordinarily resident in Scotland, they could be committing a criminal offence. We will work with National Records of Scotland to provide guidance to applicants, to ensure that they fully understand that.

I noted the evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Your point about cross-border impacts takes us back to the conversation about what a GRC does and does not do, because someone has the same protection under the gender reassignment characteristic whether or not they have a GRC. If they go from Scotland to England, they will have the same protections in relation to their gender reassignment in school, work and medical contexts, whether or not they have a GRC.

For all those reasons, I do not foresee tourism—I think that that is the word you used—being an issue.

The whole area of annual reporting was initially driven by concerns—to which we responded—about being able to track and monitor the number of GRCs being issued. That was the starting point, but I am certainly open minded as to whether such reporting would go further. It would have to be proportionate and gather things that could be gathered, so we would have to think about that, but I am certainly open to suggestions about what else might be reported annually. In Ireland, there is annual reporting of the numbers and in a few other areas.

I am also open minded on a post-legislative review, if that is to be a committee recommendation. We would need time for the new system to bed in. There will inevitably be a bit of a spike in the numbers, as there was in Ireland in the first couple of years, as people who were already living in their acquired gender wanted to go forward with their GRCs—it plateaued after that. I suspect that it would probably be the same here, but it would be useful to have the numbers through annual reporting. If a post-legislative review wanted to gather information more broadly, we would need a bit of time to set up systems to gather information on elements that it might be helpful to review.