Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Hannah?

There is a fine balance to be struck, because I imagine that an advocate depute would say that they were the best judge of what the best evidence was. I would accept that, but there are certainly cases that I have heard of in which the case would have been put better if the victim had been able to say, “You missed something really important.”

Rape Crisis Scotland makes reference to that in its submission. Is there a view about where you should be in the court once you have given your evidence, or do you just want to be able to see the on-going trial?

In the interests of time, I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit further on what you have said are exceptional circumstances. Will you stick by that? The language is important. I understand that exceptional circumstances would be exceptional. I know that you cannot always guess what they might be, but I would be grateful if you would provide that information.

I have a further question. Most parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament have taken part in debates about violence against women, and we are agreed that men are the problem—male violence is the problem. When a transgender woman has committed a serious violent offence against a man, would that not suggest that they pose a risk to women? I wonder why you did not include that category, if you like. Does that make sense?

So, a female officer could go to her line manager and say, “I am not happy to search that person,” and that would be okay.

What was the motive?

What was the motive for reconsidering something as important as data protection around what is a very controversial public policy area?

It would be helpful. I am just trying to understand, for completeness. As parliamentarians, we are trying to do our jobs and scrutinise this very important area of public policy. Whatever views we take on it, the change will deprive us of information that we used to have. It feels like a sword coming down, because yesterday we could get the information, but today we cannot. I would like to understand why.

I am trying to tease out what those exceptional circumstances are. You did not say that to Russell Findlay. Does that mean that there would be no requirement for any transgender woman to go before a multidisciplinary panel if they have committed such an offence, given that, effectively, you have said that there is more or less a blanket ban on any transgender woman who has committed such an offence going to the female estate?

The association did not sign off on it. I have read the minute, which says that it did not sign off on the policy.