Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill provides that only people who were born in Scotland or who are ordinarily resident in Scotland may apply for a GRC. We heard concerns that that might mean that people from the rest of the UK travel to Scotland to apply for a GRC. Are those concerns founded? Is there international evidence to back up or dismiss them? Given the border situation in Ireland, I hoped that the evidence that we heard last week might clear that up. However, when Senator Doherty pointed out the current differences, I realised that that was not the best example. Does the Government have other examples?

I think that it does. However, you have talked about the heated nature of the debate, but it came as a surprise to me—although maybe it did not to other members—that there is a lot of consensus about the matter, regardless of what side of the debate people are on. In essence, it is felt that there is no need for the three-month period.

Although I appreciate that response, I will go back to the last part of my first question. Is the Government open to reviewing the provision in the later stages of the bill, perhaps at stage 2?

Thank you for that clarity.

In relation to the same provision, you will be aware that concerns have been raised about the language that is used in the bill—the term “acquired gender”. We have heard robust concerns being expressed about that. Do you have any thoughts on those concerns or on the use of language? To be fair, we also heard from witnesses—in particular, academics—a couple of times that they are concerned about the use of language, but that we have to call it something. The committee has taken that on board. What are your thoughts?

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

Convener, I would like to ask about the three-month reflection period, but I do not know whether colleagues want to come in on the previous issue.

Thanks, convener. I appreciate that.

The similar provision—or theme—of the reflection period, which I know you have talked about already, came out of the further consultation that you carried out. Again, we have heard in quite a lot of evidence that a reflection period is not necessary, because it is likely that trans people have been living in their acquired gender—to use the language that has been previously discussed—for most of their lives, and have been reflecting on the matter for some time. We also heard evidence that the proposed period is not enough. I know that you will say that the reason for the three-month period is, again, to strike a balance between views, but can you say a wee bit more about the Government’s justification for having a reflection period and, specifically, a period of three months?

Thank you, convener. There are a few areas that I want to ask questions on, but first I would like to speak about some of the commentary before the break, which was about the scrutiny of the bill.

I want to put on the record—because I do not think that we have done so yet, particularly not in this meeting—my thanks to the clerking team. They have done an absolutely fantastic job of making sure that we have been able to scrutinise the bill to the level and with the impact that we have.

On other members’ lines of questioning, it will be down to each member to decide whether they feel that they have had enough information for making a decision at stage 1. That is an individual thing. However, I certainly feel—I can speak only for myself—that we have had ample information from a wide range of sources about what the bill does and does not do. It is important to put that on the record so that people do not hear just the commentary of one side. As the cabinet secretary has already said, the decisions are for the committee, so I do not expect her to comment on that.

I will start my questions by asking about the provision in the bill to live in the “acquired gender” for three months. I know that you will be aware of all the committee’s evidence sessions—you are probably aware that I have been asking questions along these lines, so it will be no surprise to you that I am asking about the provision again.

We have heard concerns across the board that there is not really any justification for the timeframe of three months. What is your response to those concerns? Where did the three months come from? Why was that particular timeframe decided on? Obviously, you will wait for the report, but, going into stage 2, what are the Government’s thoughts about removing that provision from the bill?

Thanks, cabinet secretary. Given that other people want to come in, I am happy to leave it for now.

I want to ask about the provision in the bill to be “ordinarily resident in Scotland”. We have heard concerns that that might lead to people coming from other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Wales or Northern Ireland—to seek a GRC. I know that you have a similar provision in Ireland, although you are possibly planning to expand that. Has that been a concern? You are in a position that is similar to ours in that you share a border with another country. In your case, people would travel from north to south rather than south to north, but has that happened in Ireland, and is it a concern?

Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps it is not as much of a match as I first thought. I will take that one on the chin.

Thank you for explaining that, senator. My colleague Pam Gosal will ask a wee bit more about the 16 to 18 part.

On the proposal to have no requirement to live in the acquired gender for a given time or to have a period of reflection, is there any anecdotal evidence that that has been a difficulty? From what you have said to my colleagues, I understand that there is an issue with data collection in Ireland, which you have explained well. In the seven years since the act was passed, have you picked up on any information about the absence of such a requirement? Has it been called for, for example?