���˿���

Obviously, people do not need a gender recognition certificate to access the spaces that we are talking about. The trans community has been accessing spaces that align with their acquired gender probably for as long as we have all been around, and possibly longer. The exceptions and exemptions under the legislation relate to services—for example, services that support victims of sexual assault or rape, which I cited earlier. In that case, as long as doing so is proportionate, it is legitimate to exclude trans women—it could be trans men in other cases—from a service. The 2010 act sets out clearly that there must be a proportionate response, which I think is absolutely right. The bill will change none of that.

I think that they do because the legislation requires a proportionate response so that people are not excluded in a disproportionate way.

My only other observation is that the private space that the committee has created has been good for allowing people who are concerned about the bill, and people from the trans community who feel excluded and affected deeply by some of the debate that has been going on, to express views. The committee has provided a space for anyone who would rather give their view and opinion in private. I commend the committee for that; it has allowed you to hear evidence that might otherwise not have been heard.

On the first point, I have been a member of committees that have taken lots and lots of evidence. As committee members, we want to hear as many views as possible, and it is the role and purpose of committees to look at that detail.

It is fair to say that there is a body of opinion and that this is a polarised discussion. I will not pretend otherwise. Members, including you and I, have been contacted by people who are strongly in favour of the bill and people who are strongly opposed to it. Sometimes, the reasons for people’s opposition are related not to the provisions of the bill but to wider concerns—some of which we will touch on today and some of which I tried to outline in my opening remarks—that the bill is not concerned with.

What it all boils down to is that we have to be guided by the evidence. The committee has heard some compelling evidence. Last week, that was led by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which got to the nub of the issues by giving evidence about countries that have adopted a statutory declaration process. That evidence showed that once those countries have those processes in place, the concerns such as those that have been expressed by the people who are emailing you or me have not come to fruition. The Scottish Human Rights Commission was clear that it could find no body of evidence to show that the things that people were concerned about—such as the threat to women and girls or a major change in society as we know it—had happened in those countries, and I have no reason to believe that Scotland would be any different from that.

However, it is important that we do the annual reporting on the bill. I know that the committee has taken evidence about whether there should be a post-legislative review of the legislation, to make sure that nothing emerges that we had not predicted. I am very sympathetic to that and, if the committee were to recommend that, I would give it due consideration, because I think that it is important that we look at the operation of any piece of legislation.

I am sorry, will you explain that to me again?

There are 16 transgender people in custody across the whole estate at the moment.

The committee will know that applicants are currently required to provide evidence that they have been living in their acquired gender for two years before applying, which we think is unnecessarily long. We have heard a range of views from stakeholders and respondents to the consultation, as has the committee. Some people feel that there is no need for any period of time; others are anxious that it should be longer. We are trying to find a balance.

The three-month period for living in the acquired gender represents our view of what is balanced and proportionate. It provides, on one hand, assurance that the applicant has for a time been living in the acquired gender before applying, without, on the other hand, imposing lengthy barriers.

I know that the committee heard from witnesses that applying for legal gender recognition is often the end of a process in which the person has made other changes, perhaps to documentation including their passport and driving licence. However, in the round, the three-month period helps to demonstrate the applicant’s commitment to living in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives. It is also important to note that an applicant who has been living in their acquired gender for at least three months—they might have been living in their acquired gender for many years—can affirm that in their statutory declaration, so there would not be a delay imposed on their application. In essence, they would affirm that they had been living in their acquired gender for three months or longer. I hope that that gives some reassurance that there would not be undue delay.

I have set out why I think that the three-month period provides a balanced and proportionate response to concerns that we would go from a period of two years to no time at all. We feel that three months is not unduly onerous. Many people who have been living in their acquired gender for quite some time—that will probably be the vast majority of applicants—will be able simply to affirm that. There will, therefore, be no further delay for those people. Obviously, the Government will reflect on any recommendations that the committee makes, but I feel that it is important to try and keep a balance in the bill.

Yes.

I understand the concerns, and I understand how important language is. The term “acquired gender” is the language that is used in the 2004 act and other existing legislation to describe legally changing your gender. We have used that language partly to ensure that the provisions that are being inserted in the 2004 act will work with the rest of the act, without the need to change references to acquired gender in provisions that are not being amended, because doing that would clearly be more complicated. Obviously, we will look at the committee’s recommendations, but for the purposes of legal clarity and understanding, it is appropriate to use language that is consistent with existing legislation.

I am also not clear—the academics to whom you refer were not clear, either—what alternative language could be used to accurately describe legally changing your gender.

However, it is important to say that we do not generally use the term “acquired gender” more widely to describe the experience of trans people. We will ensure that guidance and descriptions in respect of the process use language that is clear, respectful and inclusive.

The bill lays out who is able to challenge. That includes a spouse, a child and so on.