���˿���

I will not be as brief as Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I will try to be as brief as possible.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, which are, in my view, quite straightforward.

The bill proposes that it will be a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or a false application. A person who commits such an offence is liable to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine. However, what would constitute making a false declaration and what prosecutors would have to prove should a person be accused of doing so are not clear.

It might be said, “Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it?” If I were to say that I had been living as a woman for three months and I had not, I would not be telling the truth. Of course, it is not clear at all from the bill what living as a woman or a man means legally. We will come to that in discussing later amendments.

If I took something belonging to you, convener, that would constitute theft, and I could be prosecuted. If I had broken the speed limit to get over to Edinburgh, I could face penalty points. If I tried to pin the blame on someone else for that offence, that would be a lie, and I could be done for that. However, if I said that I had been living as a woman, how would anyone prove that I was lying? Given that we do not know what living as a woman means in the bill, it would be pretty difficult to establish whether I was telling the truth.

The bill creates a serious offence, which is punishable by imprisonment. It is surely incumbent on ministers to set out what would constitute making a false declaration. Amendment 22 would compel them to do that, and it would also compel them to set out what evidence would have to be provided to show that someone had lied. If ministers cannot do any of that, it is difficult to see how an offence could be prosecuted, because we would simply not know what the offence was. If we do not know what constitutes an offence because we do not know how to prove or disprove it, there can be no offence.

I say to those who are in favour of the bill—I think that the majority of the committee are in favour of it—that it needs to be much tighter. If amendment 22 is rejected, there will be legal challenges galore coming along the tracks. If the committee is minded to accept it, amendment 28 would make any regulations that are made as a result subject to the affirmative procedure, which would give an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny.

The meaning of the phrase “living in the acquired gender” is fundamental to the bill. I have searched high and low for an explanation of what has to happen if, for example, a man was to say that they were a woman; surely, the bill does not allow for a man simply to say, “I am a woman”, get a certificate to say so without providing evidence of anything, and then have that legally recognised through a change to their birth certificate—or am I missing something? I do not think so.

The bill says that I would have to live as a woman for three months. However, if we are to bring in a bill that is as fundamental to people’s lives as this one, we need to be clear on what is meant by it. The bill is woolly at best, and that is not good enough. If we are going to allow people to make declarations that they have changed gender, surely the law should say what is meant by that. The bill does not do that; indeed, it does not say anything about it, which is particularly concerning if we are moving towards a model of self-identification. Surely, something has to have changed in order for someone to say, “I was a man but now I am a woman” or vice versa.

Amendment 20 is another attempt by me to tighten up a bill that is full of holes. It does two things. It says that ministers must say in regulations, first, what they mean by the phrase “living in the acquired gender” and, secondly,

“what changes would be considered evidence that a new gender had been acquired.”

It is not for me to say what such changes should be—just that there should be some. Otherwise, we will be left with a situation in which it is easier for predatory men to prey on women by pretending to be women, because of having a certificate without any of the current safeguards that exist in law—a piece of paper that, as the bill is currently drafted, proves precisely nothing.

Amendment 27 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and amendments 29 and 30 are technical and consequential.

I move amendment 20.

I always think that it is useful during stages 2 and 3 of a bill to listen to what is being said by people one might assume one disagrees with. I think that there is probably some common ground between me and the cabinet secretary. She may not realise that, but I think that there is. She can intervene on me at any point.

Amendment 20 simply seeks to get the Government to spell out what we mean by “acquired gender” because I have seen nothing about that until today. The cabinet secretary listed a few things. I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 to see if we can insert something into the bill, based on what she has said, that will help to clarify matters, if she is prepared to do that. I invite her to respond to that.

Cabinet secretary, I am interested in what you are saying. Can you spell out some of the “numerous” other examples?

That is helpful. I can see that you are struggling to agree with me. I will help you: I will engage with you and not press amendment 20. I think that we can find common ground ahead of stage 3. I hope that we can, because that would be helpful to everyone. As experienced members know—certainly those of us who have served on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee—it is very difficult, not just for ���˿��� but for members of the public, to jump between pieces of legislation, so it is useful to have everything in one place.

I will not press amendment 20, on the basis that I think that we can work on an amendment for stage 3.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 125 moved—[Russell Findlay].

It is. I seek clarity on the STPR2 delivery plan, which Andy Park mentioned. The minister’s response to the committee says that that delivery plan will be published “later this year”. Mr Park has just said that there is slippage on that. He used the word “spring”, which can mean quite a bit.

People have been waiting for the plan for some time. The committee’s report refers quite heavily to the road network, which is why Mr Halcro Johnston was asking about it. Why is there slippage, and when exactly will we see the plan?

You are getting support from Scottish National Party members, which is not surprising.

Are you saying that it will be out by March?

I apologise for the chuntering in the background.

Has work been done to assess what facilities there are in Scotland and what their condition is?

That is very useful. I might well take the matter up with you later, Mr Park, as you seem to have a keen interest in the subject.