Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand that they are legal entities. Companies, clubs and partnerships are legal entities, but “category” is not a legal entity.

Could we have another little meeting about that?

Yes. Are we going to agree again?

I dispute that, because, with a gun licence, somebody has to license the person’s expertise. They will have expertise with a gun, and the expertise that is required for management of the land. In the circumstances, there is enough in common—although there is not a direct similarity—to say that there should be a register, which would allow people to know and to feel secure.

Edward Mountain turned the issue on its head and used the word “victimised”. I would put it the other way round: the person who is being granted that exceptional licence as published knows that when they are out and about exercising the licence, they are doing so, and if any member of the public challenges them, they are able to say, “Well, have you checked the register? I’m licensed to do this.” That turns the situation on its head.

What I am asking for is quite plain stuff—it does not go down to the granular level. I am asking that we

“keep a register of licences granted, including the start and end dates of the licence and the name of the licence holder.”

That is it. The rest can be done by regulation. It does not get into the detail of the guns and so on, which Edward Mountain has just exemplified.

It is my understanding that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has suggested that we should have such a register. I see security in it for people who have been granted exceptions. The public will think, “Oh well, this is the law now,” and they will not necessarily appreciate that there are exceptions to exceptions whereby there could be an increase in the activity. Rather than see it as victimisation—to repeat myself—I would see it as something that would give security to the licence holder.

I have nothing further to add, convener. If you feel that it is appropriate, perhaps the minister could answer some of those points, as I just want explanations.

I say to Maggie Chapman that I agree that the majority of people know their own minds—and I have met some of them. Many people have been living in a different gender for a long time before they ever apply for gender recognition. That is the majority, but there are other people who will be transitional and will need a period of thought. I am looking at the balance. For those who already know and who have already been living in a gender for years, a three-month period will be nothing, because they can demonstrate that they have been doing it for years. The same applies to 16 and 17-year-olds, with regard to the six-month period in advance and the reflection period.

However, there are people for whom I want to have just a little safeguard, and particularly 16 and 17-year-olds. In no way does that take away from the autonomy of the individuals. I have met parents of a child of 10 who knew that they were really a girl—he transitioned to a she in primary school. I have talked to people in both directions about the issue before I lodged my amendments. I want to have something in law that works for as many people as possible and that provides safeguards. That is the reason that I would give to Maggie Chapman. We cannot take away all protections and safeguards.

I am not sure whether you want me to move it at the beginning, but—

There are just so many of them.

Amendment 71 in my name is supported by Jackson Carlaw. It inserts a new section on publication of information about the process, which sets out a mandatory duty on the registrar general for Scotland to publish online information covering, inter alia, “the effect of” and

“how to make an application for a gender recognition certificate, ... the requirement to make a statutory declaration”

before applying, and

“the consequences of making”

a false application. One of my amendments, which was agreed to, has made a change so that that will not be a criminal offence for 16 and 17-year-olds.

There is also a catch-all—those are useful when setting out such measures—that is about other relevant information that the registrar general “considers appropriate”. All that will ensure that all applicants can easily access information to inform them about their decision to apply for a GRC.

To address a point that Sarah Boyack raised, I have had clarification from the Scottish Government that it remains the intention that National Records of Scotland would signpost 16 and 17-year-olds to appropriate sources of support. Similarly, NRS would signpost all applicants to information on how to make a statutory declaration.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 128 is, I think, well intentioned, but it is too broad. For example, it says that ministers “must take steps”, but I do not know what that means. It says that applicants should

“have access to appropriate support and information.”

Is that before the application, during the application process or when transitioning? We need more information on what “appropriate support and information” would be.

Some of that has been dealt with earlier in my amendment 39, certainly in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds getting advice, support and counselling from appropriate people, and of course anybody over that age could do so. That would be mandatory for 16 and 17-year-olds, but not for adults. Amendment 128 is well intentioned, but my amendment 71 is much more specific and links to earlier amendments that were agreed to on support and advice at the point when people make an application. To an extent, that has tightened up the bill.

That is all that I have to say, which was enough.

Strangely enough, I do not know—I have not gone around lobbying for them. All people in the Parliament are intelligent—I hope—and can see the amendments for themselves. At stage 1, I laid the ground with regard to my intention to propose precautions and support for 16 and 17-year-olds, because I shared concerns that they were being put in the same boat as 18-year-olds. The test is on the committee. You have been listening to the evidence in depth, so I am hopeful that my proposal has hit fertile ground.