Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have already said about amendment 1040, I am not saying that the principle of what Graham Simpson is saying does not have some merit, but that is not where the issue fits into our criminal justice process, which is why I have concerns.

I also have concerns about amendment 1038, because it could restrict the offences for which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could offer fiscal fines. During evidence, we heard concerns about a potential increase in the gravity of the offences that fiscal fines could be used for, but we have to trust the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to act in the interests of justice, as I believe it always does. Therefore, I do not support amendment 1038.

I know that and was coming to it, but thanks for that clarification. I am aware that amendment 1036 is about people who are in custody, but we are talking about the various angles on that. Jamie Greene mentioned to you the police concerns about resourcing. The Government amendments 1005 to 1007 strike the right balance and I support them.

On Jamie Greene’s amendment 1010 and Katy Clark’s amendment 1034, it goes without saying that we all want reporting mechanisms in place that allow us to get a sense of what is going on. We have had a couple of years of doing virtual trials, hearings and appearances in court but it is still not a load of time. Therefore, the cabinet secretary’s offer to Jamie Greene is valuable. I hope that Jamie Greene will take that up when he considers whether to move amendment 1010. There should be no doubt that the Government and all members of the committee want to get the best information about how virtual appearances and hearings are working.

I support the Government amendments 1005 to 1007. A good offer has been made to Jamie Greene.

Okay; I had not started on amendment 1038.

Good morning. We took a lot of evidence last week on the issue of prisons in relation to the bill. I give credit to the clerks that you are here at the right time for us to follow up on what we heard last week, and I will follow on from my colleague Pam Gosal’s line of questioning on one of the concerns that we heard. The whole purpose of the GRC is, of course, to make the process easier. This is a theoretical question and might be difficult to answer fully, but, based on your experience in the Prison Service, do you think that more people in the prison population will seek a GRC if the bill is passed?

Good morning. I have questions on two provisions in the bill: the provision on living in the acquired gender for three months, and the proposed three-month reflection period.

On the provision on living in the acquired gender for three months, we have heard quite a lot of evidence that suggests that that is unnecessary, both from those who generally support the bill and from those who have concerns about the bill. I am happy to hear from the witnesses in any order, but I will start with Anthony Horan, as that is the order that we have used so far. Anthony, what are your thoughts on that specific provision?

I will come back to you on that separately. Chris and Fraser, do you have anything to add?

As well as the potential for an increase in applications for GRCs, it is about bad-faith actors: people applying for a GRC to increase the likelihood of their being moved to another prison setting from the one that they are in, for untoward reasons. Are the policies and procedures that you have in place now robust enough to deal with that scenario? I believe that a witness last week said that it is not likely to occur often, but it could occur, and we need to be aware of that. Are your procedures able to deal with that scenario even if the bill is passed?

Thank you very much for that answer, but before I bring in the other panellists, I should perhaps expand my question a wee bit. I hope that I am not misquoting either side of the debate—I do not think that I am—but, generally speaking, those who are in favour of the bill and its provisions worry that such a period is unnecessary in itself, because the people concerned have been living like this for a long time.

Whether we are talking about three months or two years, though, this is a big, life-changing decision, and those with some concerns about the bill are perhaps concerned about the term “acquired gender” and how it might be defined. Maybe I should have given a bit more of an explanation with my previous question, although I appreciate Anthony Horan’s answer. What are the Rev Karen Hendry’s thoughts?

I have a final question, if that is all right, convener. We spoke about the current policies in the Prison Service, and it was good and reassuring to hear those. It was also helpful to hear the up-to-date position. Will the bill have an impact on how you will manage the situation for people with a GRC and, if so, what will that impact be? Are you confident in being able to manage that?

Thank you for that, Fraser.

In order to be fair, I will put my next question to the witnesses in reverse order. With regard to the three-month reflection period, which Fraser touched on, we have heard concerns that it is perhaps quite demeaning for trans people to have a reflection period. On the other side of the debate, we have heard that the reflection period is perhaps not long enough, particularly, as has been talked about, for younger people, who are going through a lot of changes in their lives. Can you give us your views on the three-month reflection period, as proposed? That question goes first to Fraser Sutherland.