Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I have a follow-up question. I asked the first panel a question about prisoner services. You mentioned a situation in which discrimination could occur, regardless of whether the person had a GRC. I will try to word this right: where does the onus lie when it comes to the Prison Service deciding where somebody should go?

Thank you.

If there was no GRC, how would one protect women prisoners from men who say that they are women in order to transfer prisons? What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you. Dr Crawford, do you have anything to add?

I thank Melanie Field for her opening statement. The Scottish Government asserts that the bill will not change rights under the 2010 act, but it has not produced a reasoned explanation for its position. The EHRC’s letter of July 2021 to the Trans Legal Project says:

“we think that it is unlikely that a trans person without a GRC can claim direct discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment if they are denied access to a single or separate sex service that corresponds with their lived gender.”

The EHRC has since revisited its guidance on single-sex spaces and services. Will you provide an update on that?

Good morning, panel, and thank you for your opening statements.

I want to ask about lowering the minimum age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition. I think that I am correct in saying that the Scottish Trans Alliance has welcomed that, but it has also stated:

“there should also be provisions for individuals struggling with their application to request support, and these should be especially sensitive to those under 18 who may be applying without the support of their parent or guardian.”

The alliance then goes on to say:

“explainers ... on ... what a GRC means, and how it could be used would ... be helpful”.

Do you think that, if individuals of a certain age are unable to understand

“what a GRC means, and how it could be used”

and require additional support to understand and submit an application, it might be unwise to lower the minimum age? That question is for Vic Valentine, first of all.

I support amendments 2, 3 and 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary, as they improve clarity around who will receive a pardon as well as widen the scope of the pardon appropriately, even if that is likely to affect only a small number of people.

The bill, as introduced, contains some ambiguities around qualifying conduct. As a result, I have lodged amendment 15, which, alongside amendments 9, 10 and 11 in the name of my colleague Alexander Stewart, seeks to remove some of the potential for the bill to be misinterpreted and for an individual to mistakenly believe that they have received a pardon. As the improved drafting in amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, will also achieve that goal, I am happy to support that amendment, regardless of the fact that it pre-empts other amendments in the group.

Thank you for your opening statements. I want to put to you a question that I put to the previous panel. A common theme in the discussion with the previous panel, which emerged in relation to the pandemic, was that of whether a child should have the autonomy to decide for themselves the manner in which they wish to be heard, including whether that is online or in person, and also how they wish to be represented. The implementation of article 12 of the UNCRC would strengthen a child’s right to have their views heard. Do you think that being more flexible and adaptable to what the child is comfortable with is key to the court making the best decision in the interests of the child?

May Dunsmuir, I put that question to you first, because it is about how children feel and how relaxed they are, and you mentioned things that might help with that, such as straws, round tables and suits.

Alistair Hogg, you spoke about being on that journey and having the right foundations in place. You talked about children being prepared, informed and supported before and after meetings. What are your views on attendance online or in person?