Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will move on to the question about the three-month reflection period, which Naomi McAuliffe also touched on. The bill provides a mandatory three-month reflection period, with a requirement for the applicant to confirm at the end of that period that they wish to proceed. Again, we have heard some strong evidence that that is unnecessary and perhaps even derogatory.

Does the panel have any thoughts on that? I see that Naomi McAuliffe is nodding her head again, but I wonder whether Catherine Murphy or Sandy Brindley wants to come in. If not, that is okay.

Does Jen Ang want to come in on 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?

Do you have any thoughts on the term “acquired gender”? Do you want to comment on that?

I cannot support the amendments in the name of Russell Findlay as they stand just now. Having to disclose every offence would be unnecessary and possibly far too intrusive. There are tight regulations on the disclosure of offences, which happens only when someone appears at court for sentencing, say, or in other such scenarios. I also point out that the minister’s amendment 15, which I am minded to support, now means that spent convictions will have to be disclosed, which is perhaps even more important.

However, I think that Russell Findlay’s amendment 74 has some scope, and it is good to hear the minister say that the matter will be looked at before stage 3. There is scope for widening the provision beyond, say, fireworks offences—indeed, we can all think of various offences that might be relevant—but the Government and Russell Findlay will have to do a lot of work on how that might work and whether such a provision might infringe other human rights.

As I have said in relation to the last three groups of amendments, we want people to use the licensing scheme, and if someone with an offence from 20 years ago does not really know whether it will come up, they might well be put off applying for a licence and continue to use fireworks anyway. However, although a lot of work needs to be done, I definitely welcome these moves and think that there is scope to increase the offences to be disclosed.

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment 67. On the face of it, it seems to make sense that people in the younger cohort are more likely to be involved in problematic firework use. However, on the other side, moving the age to 21 would perhaps negate some of the benefits of people applying for a licence and going through the training that we have talked about. Actually, that group is probably the one that we want to capture most with the training. Jamie Greene might respond to that by saying that there are other ways to ensure that people are educated, through schools and other methods. However, the licensing gives a unique opportunity for young people to look at the issues and see the consequences.

There is also the issue of criminalisation for 18 to 21-year-olds if they are prevented from getting a licence. Obviously, we want to encourage people to get a licence. On that basis, I am not likely to support amendment 67.

As Katy Clark said, on the face of it, amendment 68 seems fairly sensible, and we heard about the issue in committee. However, I would like to hear what the minister has to say on the amendment, because it raises questions for me. If one person could apply on behalf of a community, could everyone in the community use the fireworks? Who would be responsible for the risks associated with that? There are probably more question marks.

On the face of it, amendment 68 looks quite good, but it probably raises more questions, and I think that the minister is likely to ask us not to vote for it. I will wait to hear what she says on that.