³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning, everyone. For nearly two decades, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has provided a route to legal recognition for trans people. However, evidence shows that the process can be lengthy, invasive and demeaning. Since the act was introduced, the World Health Organization has recategorised gender identity health, and has made it clear that being transgender is not a mental ill health condition and that classifying it as such can cause distress.

Only around 6,000 people—of an estimated half a million trans people in the United Kingdom—have a gender recognition certificate. The aim of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is to reform the process to bring it more into line with current understanding and international best practice, and to remove barriers to trans people accessing their existing rights.

I know that there are deeply held views on transgender issues, and I appreciate that reservations about the bill are often connected with legitimate concerns about the violence, abuse and harassment that women and girls face in our society. As I have said before, trans people are not responsible for that abuse, and often face it themselves. I am also aware that many people view the reforms as being vital and overdue.

It is important to focus on the reforms that are contained in the bill as introduced, and to be very clear about what the bill does. It will introduce a new process for obtaining a GRC, which is open to people who were born or adopted in Scotland or are ordinarily resident here. It will remove the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, reduce the minimum period of living in the acquired gender from two years to three months while introducing a new three-month reflection period, and lower the minimum age for applying from 18 to 16.

The process of obtaining a GRC will remain a serious and substantial undertaking. Applicants will still have to make a statutory declaration that they are currently living in, and intend to live in, their acquired gender for the rest of their lives. Under the bill, offences relating to making a false application carry potential penalties of up to two years in prison.

Based on international comparison, we estimate that the number of Scottish GRCs might rise from around 30 to between 250 and 300 a year. That is what the bill will do.

I know that there has been some misunderstanding about what the bill will not do, and I also want to be very clear on that. The bill will not change the protections that are set out in the Equality Act 2010. It will not change the exceptions in that act that allow single-sex services to exclude trans people where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, including where those trans people hold a GRC.

The bill will not change or remove women’s rights. It will not make changes to how toilets and changing rooms operate. It does not redefine what a man or a woman is, and it does not change or expand trans people’s rights. The bill will not change the effect of a GRC, which is that the individual is legally recognised in their acquired gender.

The bill will not change the policy or laws of England or any other country; it is for other Governments and Parliaments to decide how GRCs are recognised in their jurisdictions. The bill will not change the way that gender identity healthcare is provided or make changes to public policy, including national health service patient care. It will not alter practices for collecting or processing data, including data relating to crimes. It will not change the way that Scottish prisons accommodate the people in their care, and it will make no changes to women’s sport, whether professional, amateur or in schools.

As the committee has already heard, the development of the bill has involved some of the most extensive consultation that has ever been undertaken by the Scottish Government. I have personally met a wide range of interested parties, and I know that the committee has also heard from a wide and varied group of organisations and individuals during its scrutiny sessions.

Some of those people support the bill. Others are opposed to it, and I am aware that I am unlikely to change their minds with anything that I have to say today. However, that does not mean that I have not listened to and considered their views, just as the committee will have. I commend the respectful and considered manner of everyone involved in the process.

I remain of the view that the reforms that are set out in the bill strike an appropriate balance in improving access to important human rights while providing a robust and serious process that is not to be undertaken lightly. Nonetheless, I look forward to hearing the views of the committee at the end of its stage 1 consideration, based on the evidence that it has heard. I am happy to take questions.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland was clear in thinking that young people should be involved in the development of the guidance, to ensure that it is clear and straightforward. There is merit in that. The registrar general will have a particular role in ensuring that people understand what is in the guidance. They can offer face-to-face meetings, as I said.

On the role for organisations other than the registrar general, that is about further support for a young person, beyond just support to understand the process. That is where other organisations could have an important role; the registrar general would signpost to those organisations. In the development of the guidance, I envisage that organisations will be part of that signposting.

On the money, the bill sets out what we think the registrar general’s operating costs will be, but the door is not closed if it is shown that further resources are needed, either for the registrar general or for other organisations that will support 16 and 17-year-olds to work their way through the process.

There is lots of scope for young people to be involved in developing the guidance. I will be happy to keep the committee informed about progress in that regard, if that would be helpful.

I think that that is assumed, given that the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 establishes that young people from 16 onwards have the ability to enter into legal contracts. I know that there are various ages for various things—I understand all that—but we have agreed that, from 16 onwards, young people are able and have legal capacity to make such decisions for themselves.

There are issues for the registrar general to do with capacity in general, not just in relation to young people. If the registrar general were concerned about anyone’s capacity or about someone having been coerced in any way, they would be able to take steps through the sheriff court and so on.

We think that the approach to young people is very much in line and consistent with the age of legal capacity.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission talked about that when you saw it last week, and it said that, based on international evidence and what has gone on in other countries in a position not dissimilar to our own, there is no evidence of widespread self-exclusion from services. I think that it is a matter of fear and concern rather than actual threat, but that is important in itself because we do not want to people to be concerned and worried. Therefore, we all have a responsibility to be clear with people about what the bill does and, almost more important, what it does not do. None of the protections that are already in place are affected by this in any way whatsoever.

Violence against women and girls emanates from predatory men and there is no evidence that predatory men feel the need to try to obtain a gender recognition certificate in order to be predatory and abusive. Of course, GRCs are not necessary for accessing areas such as toilets, changing rooms and other spaces that are not restricted as they would be for exceptions under the 2010 act. As I said earlier, trans women and trans men will have been using these spaces for many years and, had that been a concern or an issue, I think that we would have heard about it before now.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to post-legislative annual reporting. Also, if the committee feels that having a review that is able to take stock of all these issues is important and recommends doing that, it is something that I would look quite favourably upon.

First, I agree that trans rights are human rights. What we are trying to achieve here is about recognising—and I think that this was put across strongly by the Scottish Human Rights Commission—that everybody’s human rights are all-important collectively and should not be seen as somehow in opposition to one another. That is an important point.

On the public discourse, we have already had a discussion this morning about whether there should have been more time. I take your point that you feel that there has been too much time. I think that we have probably landed somewhere in the middle. It has been well discussed and well consulted on and we have now got to the position where we can look at the detail and make decisions.

It is very difficult to change the public discourse on social media and in some sections of the mainstream media. In some places, it has perhaps become a wedge issue against a tiny number of people who are extremely vulnerable and really just want to get on with their lives, which is why the bill is important.

In terms of the public discourse going forward, once the legislation is in place, people will see that those it affects are the tiny number of people it directly affects—in other words, those who are going to obtain a gender recognition certificate that can reflect how they have been living their lives anyway. We can see that in practice in the other countries that have done this, which are growing in number—I cited Spain, which is now looking at it as well—none of the concerns, some of which were expressed in those countries as well, have come to fruition. That should give us some confidence that people may be assured by that.

Finally, as I said in earlier, I am not sure that what is in social media really reflects where public opinion is on this matter. The BBC poll that I mentioned showed that young people, who are overwhelmingly more supportive of the trans community in all the polls that are done, and women are more supportive. That is perhaps food for thought. Some of the polling that has been done might show us a different view from the one that social media would have us believe.

We will continue to do this. If there are other things that we as a Government can do to improve the public discourse, of course we will do them. If the committee has any suggestions in that regard, I am happy to look at them.

I think that, for consistency and fairness, the reflection period should be the same. From memory, I think that the children’s commissioner was probably against having a reflection period at all, but I also think that the commissioner would be quite firmly against having some differential in the reflection period.

If we agree that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate through statutory declaration, those people should be treated as having the same maturity as everyone else has when it comes to the reflection period. Having said that, there will be the additional guidance and support structure around 16 and 17-year-olds. We think that that is the more appropriate additional support, which someone over the age of 18 might not require.

An issue of which we are mindful is people who are nearing the end of life. In those circumstances, three months could, frankly, be a long time. We are mindful of the importance for many people of their death certificate reflecting how they have lived their life. If the committee made a recommendation in that regard, I would be completely sympathetic to that.

That removal, and the separating out of legal and medical elements, are important. The redefinition by the World Health Organization is important and several countries have changed their processes.

We have heard evidence from people who have gone through the current system under the 2004 act that it is very demeaning, that the gender recognition panel is a group of people who are unknown to them, and that it is a difficult and onerous process. Therefore, we believe that the time is right to move to what is seen as international best practice, as many other countries have done.

I know that the committee has considered practice in several other countries that have changed their position, including Ireland, which is one of our nearest neighbours. Over the past few days, Spain has announced that it will be moving in that direction. We think that the change is in line with best practice and along the lines that are recommended by international bodies.

We just need to understand what the EHRC’s concern is, because the rights of transgender people across the UK are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, whether or not someone has a GRC. The fact that we are changing the process for obtaining a GRC does nothing to alter those fundamental rights that are enshrined in the 2010 act, so we do not understand the relevance, really. Those rights exist no matter what process a country has for obtaining a GRC.

I do not think that there is evidence to support that. In fact, Close the Gap has provided evidence that does not support such concerns.

The numbers are so small that I do not think that they will have a statistical impact. As for the gender pay gap, the work that is going on through Close the Gap and the work on fair pay that the Scottish Government is leading, I do not think that the bill will have any impact at all on those—or, indeed, on public life. As I said, the number of people we are talking about is very small.

The Scottish Prison Service is clear at the moment that having a GRC does not give someone any enhanced rights over where they are placed; that is all down to the risk assessment. Again, I cannot comment on other jurisdictions and whether that is different in England—that is obviously not a matter for me—but the Scottish Prison Service’s position is very clear. The review is to look at whether there is anything that the SPS should be doing in addition to what it is currently doing around the management of trans gender prisoners. The evidence could not be clearer that the Prison Service already places people where it thinks that it is appropriate for them to be placed, whether or not they have a GRC.