Seòmar agus comataidhean

Once the person is receiving support from a gender identity clinic, for how long, on average, will they receive support? I know that that will vary, as everything does, but is there an average length of time for which you support people?

The interim Cass review, which today’s earlier panel and previous panels have referred to, has reported an increase in the number of young people who are seeking appointments at gender identity clinics. I accept that the review was primarily about what is happening south of the border; are you saying that that is possibly also an outcome of the Covid pandemic in Scotland?

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for your opening statements and responses so far.

I have questions on two areas that I have explored with previous panels, which are the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection period. I will start with the former issue. From all the previous panels so far, I have picked up that, in what is quite a controversial bill, this seems to be an area of broad agreement, although perhaps not for exactly the same reasons.

We have heard from those who support the bill that the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months could be seen as demeaning, because it is likely that the individual will have been living that way for quite some time. Those who have concerns about the bill—I will say that rather than that they are opposed to it—think that the time period is not long enough. That perhaps relates to the concerns that Naomi Cunningham mentioned about the bill perhaps increasing the number of people going through the process by more than the Scottish Government thinks that it will.

I will start with Sharon Cowan. What are your views on that? Obviously, we have also heard from across the board that there is a concern about the use of the term “acquired gender” and what it might mean. Do you have any views on that?

I get where you are coming from. You have continually highlighted and worked on the issue, and I respect that. However, with regard to amendment 1040, the fiscal fine is a fundamental part of the justice system that allows a diversion from prosecution. There has to be a balance. At some point, a line has to be drawn in relation to what the rest of the community can be told. If somebody accepts a fine of that nature, they are essentially accepting that they do not need to go to court and have their innocence or guilt proven.

I have real concerns about amendment 1040. I am not saying that there is no merit at all in what you are saying, but amendment 1040 would make a massive change to how we do justice in this country.

Similarly, on amendment 1038—I will speak only to amendments 1040 and 1038—

I think that the member is trying to overpersonalise it. He does not know whether I have been a victim of an offence and he does not know what my reaction was or would be to finding out information. Trying to bring it down to that level by directing that question to me is probably not appropriate.

Some of the amendments in this group reflect the evidence that we heard in committee. I sympathise with Pauline McNeill, but, given what Rona Mackay said in her intervention on Katy Clark, I think that amendment 1035 goes too far. Virtual and remote hearings are useful in some circumstances, such as those involving domestic abuse or other crimes of that nature. On the other hand, there are human rights issues regarding trials always taking place virtually, and we heard concerns about that. The Government amendments 1005 to 1007 strike the right balance. I say that in support of them. I hope that Pauline McNeill will not press amendment 1035 or move amendment 1036.

If somebody goes right through a court process and is found guilty or not guilty, that is public information, so the public are aware of that and would find out what the disposal was. The whole purpose of fiscal fines is to avoid prosecution, so we need to draw the line somewhere on the information that we share. Does the member not accept that? I will allow him to come back in with an intervention.

Given our debates during previous committee sessions, Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene will probably not be surprised to hear that I have huge reservations about the amendments in this group.

On amendment 1040, I disagree with what Jamie Greene has just said. The whole purpose of a fiscal fine is that, once it has been offered, the individual will not go through the due court process in which they are found guilty or innocent. Therefore, although I have sympathy with the idea of victims getting to hear about what has happened in their case—who would not?—if somebody accepts a fiscal fine, that is a non-conviction disposal. [Interruption.] Wait a second, Mr Findlay. It remains on their record for two years and can be used as a source of information only in quite exceptional circumstances, such as another appearance at court.

If individuals are told that information, an unintended consequence of amendment 1040 could be that the result for the individual who receives a fiscal fine could be the same as if they had been convicted in court from the point of view of the impact on them in the community. Various examples could be given. There might be situations in which folk might not have a lot of sympathy with that, but there could also be situations in which a young teenager has got himself involved in bother and that could have a massive impact on the rest of his life.

The whole purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service having access to such disposals is so that it can use its judgment on when to divert people away from prosecution.

On amendment 1040?

I have not finished what I was going to say. Some people would want to know and others would not, but that is not the point of amendment 1040.