Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am pleased that this is the last amendment that we are debating today.

I do not think that there is any need for this amendment just now. It takes us back to earlier debates. Possibly, it is an opportunity for my colleague, who I know puts a lot of thought into his amendments, to lay out the wider policies of his party in relation to justice.

I say that because there will be no argument from anybody at all about the serious nature of assaults on emergency workers. We have heard about it in evidence. We all know about it and we all get examples of it in our constituency case work. It is an extremely serious offence but it is already covered by separate legislation, indicating how seriously the Parliament, on a cross-party basis, has treated the issue. I do not think that there is any need for an aggravation to be added, because the courts can already impose an appropriate sentence in relation to such cases.

When the member is summing up, he may talk about the presumption against short-term sentences—something which I very much agree with—but some of the possible offences that we are talking about, in their extreme form, would be likely to incur longer sentences in any case. Also, there might be other situations where there are mitigating factors, such as when a group of young people get together and it is not clear how the offence has been committed. That is the sort of thing that we have talked about in committee. The legislation as drafted already gives flexibility around that and it is pretty good.

This has been a very good debate overall and I would not want anybody who is watching the meeting and listening to this last debating point to think that the bill does not allow for harsher penalties when an emergency worker, for example, is seriously assaulted or even injured by the use of fireworks or pyrotechnics. I do not think that there is any need for the amendment.

I speak in support of amendments 56 and 57, in the name of Collette Stevenson, which are a fair reflection of where the committee got to in its discussion of the matter. Although I am sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s amendment 129, I think that amendments 56 and 57 capture the spirit of that discussion. Given what Collette Stevenson has said about working with the minister before lodging the amendments and given that they are very similar to amendment 129, I hope that Jamie will consider not moving his amendment.

I hear what Pauline McNeill said in relation to amendment 90. Something could be lodged at stage 3 to capture the point that she highlighted, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary as currently drafted. One of the main reasons for taking that view is that it will be quite complicated to get an idea of the effect of the scheme, given that other factors such as education and training courses will be taken into account. I will listen to what the minister has to say, but I am not minded to support amendment 90.

The other three amendments in the group are good, but amendments 56 and 57 will get my support.

The situation is different in different parts of the country, I guess, but does Jamie Greene accept that the purpose of the bill is to limit the indiscriminate use of fireworks? He said that our inboxes are flooded only at times when fireworks would still be permitted under the bill. First, that has not always been my experience. Sometimes, my inbox is flooded around sporting events, for example. Secondly, the purpose of the scheme is to create a licensing process, which we hope will reduce the number of inappropriate fireworks. Does he accept that point?

That is a point. As you said, we can pass that over to the minister.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I guess that that is part of the reason why we take evidence.

Thank you for those answers.

I have one more line of questioning. I can see the convener’s eyes burning through me, and I have already been chastised, so I will join my questions together. There has already been a bit of discussion about this, but would any of the witnesses like to put on record their views on the provisions in the bill around living in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection period? There has been some light discussion on those issues already, but does anybody want to comment?

Thank you for your evidence this morning—and this afternoon, given that we have crossed the midday line.

I have two questions on the provisions in the bill about living in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection period. To start with the first provision, the committee has heard evidence that there is no need for such a three-month period, because people who make such decisions tend to have been living as trans for some time. Another issue that has been raised—including by witnesses this morning—is that of what an acquired gender would look like. I think that we finished our session with the previous panel on a point of consensus. Does anyone want to come in on that?

One of the difficulties with going last is that a lot has already been covered. It has been a really good evidence session this morning, so thank you for that. I have a few areas to ask about, convener, but I will try to streamline them.

On the first area, I might make a comment rather than asking a question. It relates to the discussion about prisons that we had earlier. I thank Dr Kate Coleman for her evidence. A lot of good points have been raised on the subject. I checked earlier with one of the clerks to make sure that I was right in thinking that the Scottish Prison Service will be coming in soon to give evidence. We have a range of questions for it, which I think will tie in to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point as well, because we can ask it how things are working just now, under the current system, and what it feels is likely to change.

I also thank Lucy Hunter Blackburn for her suggestions because I think that the debate, particularly on social media but elsewhere as well, is sometimes painted as being about a choice between having the bill or not having the bill, with very little in between. As Pam Duncan-Glancy noted, you have made suggestions about how to improve the bill or alleviate some people’s concerns, which was really good to hear.

We have not talked a lot about sport today, although it has been mentioned briefly. The committee has previously had various discussions about it. Last week, we heard evidence from sportscotland that it does not feel that the bill will change anything about how sport operates. We got the impression that it is down to the governing bodies to manage the issue; they sometimes go to sportscotland for advice and guidance. Sportscotland felt that the bill will not impact sport. Will you comment on that?

Sorry, just a wee second. Why did those organisations take that view? Last week, they told us that there are a lot of examples of trans people playing sports and being valued members of their sporting communities. What will the bill change?