Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am generally supportive of amendments 60 and 61, in the name of Jamie Greene; at least, I am supportive of the principle behind them, which is an attempt to tighten up the use of licences, which is a big part of the bill.

However, as Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark have said, and as Jamie Greene has reflected on, the amendments might not be the finished article. I am keen to hear whether the minister has any concerns and if so, what they are and whether the possibility of overcriminalisation is one of them. If people are trying to do the right thing, criminalising them would not be the right way to go. However, Jamie Greene has offered to work with the minister with regard to what he is trying to achieve with the amendments, and perhaps we could take that forward at stage 3. That is a sensible approach, because we want to see the licensing scheme work.

I think that Jamie Greene’s fear—which the minister might be able to alleviate when she speaks—is that, if there is a way not to present a licence, then most people will not present one and licensing will not really be enforced. We would like to see it the other way about: if a licence is needed, you need to present one, unless you can demonstrate why you do not have to do so. I will wait to hear what the minister says about that.

I am not entirely clear how amendment 46 would work. I appreciate Katy Clark’s explanation of it, but it would be good to hear what the minister thinks about that, too.

I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment because he consistently raised the issue, as did Katy Clark, throughout the stage 1 evidence taking and in the stage 1 debate. However, a requirement for review is not needed in the bill. Katy Clark assures us that it would not delay the bill’s implementation. The minister might have different views on that. Any risk of delay is simply not worth it, because the committee has invested a lot in an already truncated timescale, which has been widely debated.

We are talking about there being a possibility that current legislation is not being used effectively. The argument could be made that we need new legislation so that the powers will be used. The new legislation would be in the public eye and in prosecutors’ minds to use. We all want effective legislation.

Perhaps the minister will offer that a review like the one required by the amendment could be carried out anyway. Katy Clark touched on that. The Government could do that and it does not need to be in the bill. Therefore, I am not minded to support the amendment.

Thanks very much for that and for taking the opportunity to reinforce your earlier point. Bruce Adamson, do you have any thoughts on that area?

Thanks for that, Bruce. My second area of questioning is on the provision that would make it a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or application. I will come to Bruce Adamson first on that, as in his opening remarks he spoke about his worry about the impact that that could have, especially on 16 and 17-year-olds. Could he expand on that and let me know what his concerns are?

I note that in a previous answer Ellie Gomersall spoke about the age of legal responsibility, albeit in another context. I was a member of the committee that took through the bill that became the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. Given where the country is perhaps trying to go on the criminalisation of children, where does the provision in the bill fit in with that?

I appreciate that response. You touched on the fact that although there is a great deal of support for the bill, there is also a great deal of worry about it, which the committee is obviously hearing about.

The committee as a whole is keen to bring in legislation that makes it as easy as possible for people to live the lives that they want to lead. Do you not feel that the provisions on the criminal offence provide some reassurance to those who are opposed to the bill based on the concerns that have been raised? We have heard from you and other witnesses that anybody who applies for a gender recognition certificate will have already been living as trans for quite some time, so it is a decision that will have been taken a long time ago. Do you not feel that making it a criminal offence for somebody to make a false declaration will provide reassurance to those who have concerns about the bill?

Do the bodies for different sports across the country come to you to seek advice on this issue?

Good morning. I have two broad areas of questioning. The first is on the evidence that the committee has heard in support of the removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Ellie Gomersall, we have already heard your opening statement, in which you made your views and those of your organisation quite clear. Before I come to Bruce Adamson, do you wish to put any other views on that requirement on the record, for the benefit of committee members?

Thank you for being as brief as you can be about an issue that I know you are passionate about.

I turn to Ellie Gomersall. Can you answer the question in two parts? First, will you look at the criminal offence in terms of the 16 to 18-year-olds whom you represent? Do you have any concerns there? Secondly, will you talk about the wider implications for over-18s? I know that your organisation also represents them.

My question broadly follows on from Alexander Stewart’s line of questioning. You talked about responses to the consultation on the joint guidance that was published. What sort of response have you had since the guidance was published? Have the trends been the same, with the two trains of thought that you have spoken about, or have you had further responses that have given you cause for consideration?

Do you feel that that has increased as there has been a debate around the issue, or have you always been asked for advice on it?