Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, cabinet secretary. Given that other people want to come in, I am happy to leave it for now.

I want to ask about the provision in the bill to be “ordinarily resident in Scotland”. We have heard concerns that that might lead to people coming from other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Wales or Northern Ireland—to seek a GRC. I know that you have a similar provision in Ireland, although you are possibly planning to expand that. Has that been a concern? You are in a position that is similar to ours in that you share a border with another country. In your case, people would travel from north to south rather than south to north, but has that happened in Ireland, and is it a concern?

Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps it is not as much of a match as I first thought. I will take that one on the chin.

Thank you for explaining that, senator. My colleague Pam Gosal will ask a wee bit more about the 16 to 18 part.

On the proposal to have no requirement to live in the acquired gender for a given time or to have a period of reflection, is there any anecdotal evidence that that has been a difficulty? From what you have said to my colleagues, I understand that there is an issue with data collection in Ireland, which you have explained well. In the seven years since the act was passed, have you picked up on any information about the absence of such a requirement? Has it been called for, for example?

Good afternoon, senator. I have really enjoyed the session so far.

I want to ask about some specific provisions in the bill that we are considering. I will start with the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection period. I am aware that the Irish act did not include such time periods. Was there any discussion about time periods, either before or after? Where did those discussions lead to? Was that aspect never even on the table?

I agree with you, convener. I hear where Jamie is coming from, and, in principle, I do not object to that, but it might muddy the waters a bit, especially as we go into recess, if we were to write to both of them and we ask Police Scotland to respond to that letter. I would prefer to compromise by writing to Police Scotland just now—we will be in recess when it responds—and leave it to your discretion whether we then write to the SPA. You can bear in mind that members have requested that. If we write to both just now, we might find that Police Scotland then wants to respond to other things in the second letter from the SPA.

I agree with all the points that have been made. I agree with the first few members who spoke about the difficulties that Police Scotland clearly faces, and with Katy Clark when she outlined what the committee’s role could be in the matter. There are processes such as pay negotiations to go through, which I know are happening.

Pauline McNeill touched on this, but I found one of the things that Calum Steele said in his letter quite strong. We need to get to the bottom of it and understand what it is. I will read it out. He says:

“It is also noteworthy that palpable anger remains across the PSoS as to how police officers were treated by Government, the Service, and the SPA during the height of the Coronavirus pandemic.”

We need to try to understand what that refers to. Pauline McNeill raised the issue of vaccinations. Is the anger that Calum Steele mentioned just about that or were other things going on? We need to tease out what that means. The committee could have a role in trying to understand that and give advice about how the situation could be improved. I found that to be quite a strong statement.

Dr Dunne, do you have any thoughts on the matter?

My apologies to the convener and to all present for being late today. I was impacted by the rail strikes, as I am sure that the convener has already reflected.

I will ask questions around the provisions in the bill in relation to the three-month period for reflection and the three-month period for living in the “acquired gender”, as it is referred to. I apologise at the outset if any of the panellists have already covered those areas. Although I had access to the session remotely, witnesses will understand that there were certain periods during what was quite a lengthy journey when it was not possible to pay quite as much attention.

Does Barbara Bolton have any thoughts on the provision around living in the acquired gender for three months? We have heard widespread criticism of it from—if you like—both sides of the argument. Do you have any thoughts on where the committee might want to take that particular provision in the bill?

I know that the convener has said that we are tight for time, but I have one final question. Do you have any thoughts on the term “acquired gender”, about which, as you will have heard, there has been quite a lot of discussion in previous evidence sessions?