Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is in a similar vein. Cabinet secretary, I know that the Government is not overly keen on accepting a huge number of

“For the avoidance of doubt”

amendments, but I know that you are considering Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 37 in particular because it encompasses a wider remit. When you respond to the interventions, if you are suggesting that the committee should support that amendment, please say whether you think that it captures the intent of my amendment 111, and to what extent it does so.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and colleagues.

I say at the outset that amendment 111 in my name is a probing amendment. Prisons are clearly an area of concern for many people in respect of the bill. Personally—and I know that other colleagues share this view—I do not believe that prisons are the place for women at all, apart from in the most serious of situations, but that is, of course, a matter for wider discussion. I do appreciate the new women’s custody suites that the Scottish Government has put in place. However, it is vital that those who are housed in prisons feel safe.

I want to put on record my grateful thanks to MurrayBlackburnMackenzie for suggesting an initial form of this amendment following the stage 1 debate, in which I spoke about this issue. The initial amendment stated that the possession of a gender recognition certificate was to have no bearing on allocation decisions made in respect of housing in the prison estate, but the legislation clerks got back to me, saying that they felt that that did not fall within the scope of the bill. That is why the amendment before colleagues today is a “For the avoidance of doubt” one.

The amendment simply sets out what the Scottish Prison Service says that it already does and what everyone wants to be the case, which is that trans prisoners are risk assessed to ensure that they are housed in the most appropriate facility for the safety of other inmates and, of course, the trans person themselves. I put on record my thanks to the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland, Scottish Trans, the Equality Network and colleagues from across the chamber for their support and for understanding the intention behind my amendment. I am simply attempting, as we bring forward legislation, to make the lives of trans people easier and to provide reassurance in an area where there are genuinely held concerns.

I know from speaking to the Government that “For the avoidance of doubt” amendments are not great, and I know that there are some concerns about them. I know, too, that the Government is keen to hear about a later amendment from Pam Duncan-Glancy that might cover what I intend to achieve with amendment 111. I look forward to hearing about that amendment.

Based on all that, I am not inclined to move the amendment at this time—I want to hear the debate on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment—but I encourage the cabinet secretary and the Government to consider further improvements in this area and others ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the bill commands as widespread support as possible in the chamber and with the public.

Although they are well intentioned, I am unable to support Michael Marra’s amendments 45 and 48. I do not think the comparison with the passport process is a good one. As I mentioned earlier, the core purpose of the bill is to make the process easier for trans people.

Michael Marra suggested that the amendments would raise the bar for bad-faith actors. We have had a discussion about bad-faith actors. We need to use stages 2 and 3 to further consider the issues, as happened with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment in the previous group, and we need to do more on bad-faith actors. However, Michael Marra’s amendments raise the bar for all trans people and go against all the principles of the bill, on which the committee has taken a lot of evidence and produced a stage 1 report. I will not support amendments 45 and 48.

I will be very brief. It is fair to say that we heard quite a lot of evidence on this matter during stage 1. We heard varying views, so I am not surprised by the number of amendments that have been lodged. The two sides of the argument have been quite well expressed and summed up by, on the one side, Rachael Hamilton and, on the other, Maggie Chapman.

During the stage 1 debate, we heard that we want to build consensus on the bill as we go through stages 2 and 3, and we should try to do that on this matter. The cabinet secretary has said that, in taking the bill forward, the decision relating to 16 to 18-year-olds has been one of the most difficult.

Based on what I have heard so far, I am not sure who will press their amendments or take the issue forward to stage 3. However, at this stage, I suggest that Christine Grahame’s amendments find the right balance, so I am inclined to vote for them.

Russell Findlay put forward a strong argument for his amendments. We took evidence during committee on the issue, and regardless of whether we think that the scenarios that Russell Findlay mentions are plausible, he has outlined that they could happen. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response on the actions that the Government will take through Keith Brown.

I do not know what Russell Findlay is going to do with his amendments based on what he has heard, but is there any scope for him and the Government to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3? At this point, his amendments are too raw, and we do not know the full implications. As the cabinet secretary suggested, some of the amendments might have human rights implications, and if so, the committee should vote against them, but given that he has raised concerns, perhaps common ground could be reached. Is he considering having further discussions ahead of stage 3, as opposed to pressing the amendments now?

I want to speak briefly on the amendments that have been lodged by Sue Webber and Rachael Hamilton. As I have said previously, I think that stage 2 will allow us to find a lot of compromise, and I take the opportunity, before he moves his later amendments, to suggest to Russell Findlay that he works with the Government.

With this group of amendments, we are talking about the core of the bill. Some of the evidence that we heard in committee about people needing medical permission for them to be who they are goes against the grain of the bill. I will not go into the whole debate around the three-month period, because I know that time is tight and that those issues have been debated thoroughly. However, with regard to the process for an application, I cannot agree with the amendments in this group. The purpose of the bill is to make life better for trans people, and we must keep that part of the bill.

Although I really want to find compromise as we progress with the bill—I know that the Government does as well—I cannot support the amendments in this group.

Obviously, the letter and the work of the working group were about parades, specifically. However, people feel that some of the disruption to the community is sectarian, so the work is part of another attempt to address that stain on Scottish society, although, ultimately, it has led to no firm conclusions. In that regard, there is likely to be disappointment. However, there is likely to be understanding of that, too—when I heard about the working group, I thought that that might be the outcome.

I am a wee bit disappointed that the working group and the cabinet secretary’s response were focused on Glasgow. Although that is right because everybody from anywhere in Scotland would know that Glasgow is the most impacted place, Lanarkshire must be a very close second. Reference is made only to “some Local Authorities”. Possibly, that does not take into account the impact that sectarianism is having on communities such as Coatbridge, Airdrie, East Kilbride, Motherwell, Hamilton and Larkhall. Maybe that could have been recognised a bit more.

Local authorities, the police and others are doing all that they can to achieve a balance between observing human rights, including the right to parade, and preventing disruption to communities. If we are to move forward, we must continue supporting our local partners.

Those are simply comments rather than points for action, convener.

My question goes back to Katy Clark’s line of questioning a wee while ago about reform and how some upcoming reforms, which the committee will consider, could link into the budget process that we are here to talk about.

We will very soon be starting work on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which you will be aware of. It is intended that it will make a big impact on the prison population, although we will need to wait to see how it pans out. A bit later in this session, we will see the proposed criminal justice reform bill, which will be on a mixture of various things that have been talked about for a while, as Katy Clark said.

I do not want you to speak about those bills, as such, because they will go through the normal process, and work on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill will be starting soon. Have you any early thoughts—yours or thoughts from discussions with the Prison Service—about how those bills might impact on budgets, or is it too difficult to say, just now?

I was not sure whether you were going to bring me back in, convener, given that Wendy Sinclair-Gieben has already touched on this issue in response to earlier questions.

Throughout the pre-budget scrutiny process, I have been asking other panellists about the interplay with other agencies. I know that you have touched on this already, but if everyone—the Prison Service, the police, community justice and so on—gets a flat cash settlement, what impact will that have on the SPS budget?

When many of the projected cost implications relate to improvements to people’s working lives, it is difficult for us to be against them.

I, too, have heard that Kilmarnock prison is very well run. That is worth noting.