���˿���

One of the difficulties with going last is that a lot has already been covered. It has been a really good evidence session this morning, so thank you for that. I have a few areas to ask about, convener, but I will try to streamline them.

On the first area, I might make a comment rather than asking a question. It relates to the discussion about prisons that we had earlier. I thank Dr Kate Coleman for her evidence. A lot of good points have been raised on the subject. I checked earlier with one of the clerks to make sure that I was right in thinking that the Scottish Prison Service will be coming in soon to give evidence. We have a range of questions for it, which I think will tie in to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point as well, because we can ask it how things are working just now, under the current system, and what it feels is likely to change.

I also thank Lucy Hunter Blackburn for her suggestions because I think that the debate, particularly on social media but elsewhere as well, is sometimes painted as being about a choice between having the bill or not having the bill, with very little in between. As Pam Duncan-Glancy noted, you have made suggestions about how to improve the bill or alleviate some people’s concerns, which was really good to hear.

We have not talked a lot about sport today, although it has been mentioned briefly. The committee has previously had various discussions about it. Last week, we heard evidence from sportscotland that it does not feel that the bill will change anything about how sport operates. We got the impression that it is down to the governing bodies to manage the issue; they sometimes go to sportscotland for advice and guidance. Sportscotland felt that the bill will not impact sport. Will you comment on that?

Sorry, just a wee second. Why did those organisations take that view? Last week, they told us that there are a lot of examples of trans people playing sports and being valued members of their sporting communities. What will the bill change?

Do you have any thoughts on the term “acquired gender”? Do you want to comment on that?

Naomi, do you want to comment?

I will bring in Lucy, but before I do, I was saying that I guess that that is why we take evidence. As committee members, we do not control what people say to us.

Why do you think that we heard such strong evidence from sports organisations and others? I had an idea of where their evidence last week might go, but I was quite surprised by how clear they were—

I will move on to the question about the three-month reflection period, which Naomi McAuliffe also touched on. The bill provides a mandatory three-month reflection period, with a requirement for the applicant to confirm at the end of that period that they wish to proceed. Again, we have heard some strong evidence that that is unnecessary and perhaps even derogatory.

Does the panel have any thoughts on that? I see that Naomi McAuliffe is nodding her head again, but I wonder whether Catherine Murphy or Sandy Brindley wants to come in. If not, that is okay.

Does Jen Ang want to come in on that?

Jamie Greene makes a point about the number of prosecutions. Who are we to say what a high number would be? As far as the amendment is concerned, what number would he have been satisfied with—500, 1,000 or 2,000? Would that still be too low? We do not really know.

Particularly in this committee, what I come back to is that, when we legislate, we cannot simply look at the number of prosecutions as the only factor. Nor should that be the only factor in the committee agreeing the principles of the bill—which, as the member rightly said, we agreed at stage 1—and whether to introduce new legislation. Part of the role of legislation is to act as a deterrent; it is not necessarily about ensuring criminal prosecutions, which, as I think we will also agree, can harm individuals, too. I wanted to make that point.

When members take time to lodge amendments and work together as a team in committee, I always try to find some common ground, even if I do not intend to vote for those amendments. Nevertheless, I have to start with a caveat—almost an apology—that I completely disagree with the amendments in group 5.

I feel that the bill, which we have already taken through stage 1, already strikes the right balance in this respect. In my view—the minister has been clear on this—the aim of the bill is not to engage in unnecessary criminalisation, but to change the relationship with, and use of, fireworks in this country, which is a major problem for communities.

Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene talked about the need for the option of a custodial sentence, but I cannot think of an example that would merit such a sentence. Even the most serious instance that we could imagine, such as an assault on emergency workers, would already be covered by other laws that could be utilised by the prosecution service.

What we are talking about is the use of fireworks as we currently experience it in Scotland. I think that the bill already strikes a balance, and already puts power with the courts. The committee took evidence from one of the panels—I cannot remember which one—on the subject of disposals that would lead people, and young people in particular, to look at their behaviour. We know that some community groups are doing really good work in that area. I will not go through all the amendments in the group individually. I respect the work that Russell Findlay has put into bringing them together, because there is quite a lot in there, but I am absolutely not going to support them. I think that the bill already strikes a balance.