Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is great—thank you.

The difficulty of coming in at the end of the evidence session is that most of the points that I was going to ask about have been covered. However, I will try to put a slightly different slant on the matter.

With Rona Mackay and, of course, the clerks, I was involved in the progress of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill through the Parliament at stages 1 and 2—obviously, the whole Parliament was involved latterly. It is good to see the fruition of that and how passionate you are about your work because, in many respects, you and your small team are the bill. The work that you are doing is really good.

I will not lie to you: if I remember correctly, the bill was very technical and involved some long mornings in committee—I am sure that Rona Mackay would back me up on that, given that she asked for my assistance earlier. It is therefore good to see somebody who is passionate about the role and brings the process to life for us as we hear about your work.

My question is about the collaborative work that you are doing with counterparts in the UK. As you said in your opening statement, there is a lot of overlap between the various pieces of legislation. You have covered most of that, but I ask you to put on record where you think the collaboration work will go in future. What are your thoughts on working with Fraser Sampson and others in future and where that collaboration will go if different legislation is put in place? For example, if other powers are devolved to Scotland, how might that work?

Thank you for airing your concerns in that regard.

The other area that I was going to ask about has been quite widely covered by other members. It concerns the expansion of your role. I remember that, during the passage of the bill, there was a lot of discussion about local authorities and the various biometric data that other bodies have. Even just to get into the Parliament building, all of us who work here have to press our fingerprint down. There is a lot of that.

Rather than looking at expanding your role—I think that the Parliament has been quite clear on that—do you have any thoughts on whether your current role would be useful either for other parts of the criminal justice sector or even, in time, for local authorities or other public bodies?

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for your opening statements and responses so far.

I have questions on two areas that I have explored with previous panels, which are the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection period. I will start with the former issue. From all the previous panels so far, I have picked up that, in what is quite a controversial bill, this seems to be an area of broad agreement, although perhaps not for exactly the same reasons.

We have heard from those who support the bill that the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months could be seen as demeaning, because it is likely that the individual will have been living that way for quite some time. Those who have concerns about the bill—I will say that rather than that they are opposed to it—think that the time period is not long enough. That perhaps relates to the concerns that Naomi Cunningham mentioned about the bill perhaps increasing the number of people going through the process by more than the Scottish Government thinks that it will.

I will start with Sharon Cowan. What are your views on that? Obviously, we have also heard from across the board that there is a concern about the use of the term “acquired gender” and what it might mean. Do you have any views on that?

I highlight to Naomi Cunningham and Karon Monaghan that we heard quite strong views on the issue of age from those on previous panels. As Maggie Chapman mentioned, other members will explore that area, which is why I have no follow-up questions. I thank all three of you for your answers.

Yes, if that is okay.

That is what we have been told by previous witnesses. There are worries about the term.

I move on to my second area of questioning, which concerns the three-month reflection period. I will go to the witnesses in the opposite order this time, as Naomi Cunningham came in at the end on the previous question, when the points had already been covered.

We have heard some concerns about the proposed three-month reflection period. I wonder whether you have any views on that. As with the first area, we have heard concerns from those on both sides of the argument but, for different reasons, the concerns are probably more profound in this regard. Naomi, do you have any views on the reflection period?

Those are significant waiting times, which is what we have heard. How does the 4,000 figure compare with previous years and over time? Is the figure fairly static or has it been increasing?

Once the person is receiving support from a gender identity clinic, for how long, on average, will they receive support? I know that that will vary, as everything does, but is there an average length of time for which you support people?