���˿���

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2022 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. The first item on our agenda is our second session on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. We will hear from two panels of witnesses.

I welcome our first panel: Louise Bussell, chief officer for Highland community at NHS Highland; Nicky Connor, chief officer of Fife integration joint board and director of Fife health and social care partnership; Fiona Duncan, executive chief officer for health and social care and chief social work officer at Highland Council; Vicky Irons, chief officer of Dundee health and social care partnership; and Ross McGuffie, chief officer of North Lanarkshire health and social care partnership. Good morning, everyone.

All our witnesses are joining us remotely today. Members will generally direct a question to a particular witness, to get us started. However, should you wish to respond, please type R in the chat box. The clerks will be monitoring the chat box, as will I, and I will bring you in when I can.

Please do not feel obligated to respond to every question. If you do not feel that you have anything additional to state to what has already been said, that is absolutely fine. Also, if you are asked a question but you do not have the information to hand, just say so and you can send that to us in writing after the meeting.

We have a lot of ground to cover, so we will move straight to members’ questions. I turn to the deputy convener, Kaukab Stewart.

Yes, we can. It is a bit intermittent, but carry on.

Thank you, Martin. That is lovely—people are chortling.

I know that you are keen to come in on this, too, Jude.

I wonder whether Ross McGuffie is able to respond.

Do you want to answer that question first, Louise, before we go back to Fiona? I know that Ross McGuffie wants to come in, too.

The Derek Feeley report gave no indication at all of the inclusion of children’s services, so it came as quite a surprise that those services are covered.

You briefly mentioned the co-production of services. Given that co-production will probably happen after the legislation comes into force, do you see that being a challenge? Ross McGuffie alluded to co-design being bolted on earlier. Will you comment on the cart-before-horse approach to the bill?

Thank you. We move to questions from Michael Marra.

Good morning. This group of amendments is on retention of current application process and evidence required in support of applications. The amendments would bring the legislation back to the status quo and—importantly—retain current safeguards. They would mean that all the existing provisions with regard to gender recognition certificates in the 2004 act would be retained, so the 2004 act would operate in the same way that it does now. The only difference would be that an application could be made to the registrar general, but that would, under these amendments, still need the approval of the gender recognition panel, so the effect would be the same.

The aim of keeping the current legislation in place is to protect vulnerable young people when it comes to life-altering decisions, while protecting women and girls from bad-faith actors who might take advantage of the proposed changes in the bill.

Amendment 2 would retain the gender recognition panel specifically, as there is not enough evidence to support its removal. Although Conservative members recognise and acknowledge the issues that some people have had with the panel, we believe that, overall, the panel provides a system of safeguarding and gatekeeping. We also believe that more evidence should be required before it is removed, and that there is currently just not enough evidence to suggest that the registrar general alone should be responsible for the administration of the gender recognition certificates.

Amendment 3 would retain the need for a medical diagnosis. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria can distinguish between bad actors. Women’s Rights Network Scotland has told us that removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis could lead to an abuse of the system by bad-faith actors, in particular, predatory men, as we have heard from colleagues.

Amendment 4 would retain the need for a person to have lived for two years in the acquired gender and for the applicant to be at least 18 years old. We believe that three months is too little time in which to take such an important decision. Distressed people will be able to make lifelong decisions before medical professionals have had the chance to help them, especially when coupled with the lack of a gender dysphoria diagnosis. We all know that a lot can happen in two years, particularly when you are young and growing.

The Scottish Government’s decision to set a three-month period is entirely arbitrary and lacks evidence. Furthermore, a 16-year-old is too young to obtain a GRC, and allowing them to make a life-altering decision after a short period could have negative consequences that are not accounted for in the bill.

Amendments 5 to 17 are all consequential to the proposed reversion back to the status quo. They seek to remove a long list of sections—sections 5 to 16—and the schedule from the bill. That is necessary because my first three amendments, which would remove sections 2, 3 and 4 from the bill, would mean that all those subsequent sections of the bill would no longer be required. For example, the sections on “Further provision about applications and certificates” are void when the status quo is retained, because those sections change the provisions of the bill that I wish to remove. I hope that that clarifies the position for the committee.

Convener, the amendments reflect a position that is not mine alone. A poll has indicated that only a minority of Scots support removing the safeguards: only 19 per cent of Scots support reducing the age at which someone can obtain a GRC from 18 to 16; 25 per cent support cutting the waiting period from two years to three months; and 26 per cent support removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis. The current safeguards in law are important. Along with the majority of the Scottish public, I recognise that and want those safeguards to be retained. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 2.

I refer particularly to the comments made by Fulton MacGregor and by the cabinet secretary describing the amendments as being against the principles of the bill. We, too, want to safeguard trans people and to ensure that they can go through the process in as streamlined and secure a way as possible. We do not want to make life more challenging for those people. I make that clear.

As I said, a person can go through a range of life experiences in two years. Those might include changes in schooling or in the family, moving to a different part of the country and puberty, to name but a few. I think that having safeguards in place will ensure that the right decisions are made. We are talking about life-altering decisions, which are not reversible. We must look long and hard at that.

Given the comments that we have heard, and following feedback from discussions with my colleagues, I will press only amendment 2 today.

Thank you, Stephen. Councillor Buchanan wants to come in.