Chamber and committees

I thank Maggie Chapman for her comments on my amendments in the group.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to support amendment 97, because I believe that narrowing the list of persons with an interest could prevent someone who has a genuine interest in someone’s GRC application from using the person of interest provisions in good faith, on the grounds of genuine concerns about capacity. However, my amendments 130 and 132—as Maggie Chapman suggested—attempt to add safeguards and proportionality to the process to prevent people from using it maliciously. For that reason, I ask members to support my amendments. I think that Maggie Chapman’s amendments 95 and 96, which she has said that she will withdraw and not move respectively, are reasonable but I ask members to support my amendments.

Thank you—give me a second to get to the correct page in my notes.

The intention behind amendment 126 is to ensure that someone who is nearing the end of their life does not have to wait unnecessarily to have their gender recognised in legislation. I lodged the amendment because I think that the reflection period should be waived for people in that situation.

I recognise that the Government has lodged amendment 49 on the matter and I welcome its agreement to work on it before stage 3.

In amendment 126, I use the definition of “terminally ill” that is used in social security legislation in Scotland, which I think is a good definition. I do not intend to press amendment 126, but I would welcome the Government agreeing to work with us to ensure that someone who is at the end of their life can get a gender recognition certificate as quickly as possible and to consider using the definition from social security legislation.

I move amendment 126.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answers, and I note some of the concerns about competency in relation to amendment 115. However, I believe that we need to send a signal that asylum seekers are welcome to apply for the process. I wonder, therefore, whether the cabinet secretary will consider the requirement in Tess White’s amendment 116 that the applicant intends to be here for longer than a year. Most asylum seekers, I imagine, would make that declaration and believe it to be true at the time. On that basis, will the cabinet secretary consider supporting that amendment?

I thank the members who have lodged amendments. I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. In short, there are merits to many of the amendments before us, but I have concerns about some. I hope that we can work on those together, ahead of stage 3.

Carol Mochan’s amendment 117, as she has highlighted, seeks to address concerns that some people have. It would require free, confidential and balanced support to be provided, at their request, for 16 and 17-year-olds applying for a GRC. That would be really important for some people. Carol Mochan’s amendment seeks to ensure that there is support for people who need it. Amendment 117 would give 16 and 17-year-old applicants the opportunity to access support on their terms. That is a positive way of supporting young trans people to access their rights and is distinct from other amendments in the group, in particular amendment 38, in the name of Christine Grahame. On that basis, if those amendments are pressed, I will have to abstain.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 124 adds the coercion of 16 and 17-year-olds as a factor allowing for the rejection of an application for a GRC, along with a presumption that 16 and 17-year-olds do have the capacity to understand the process. All those elements support capacity and the influence of coercion, as my colleague Martin Whitfield has highlighted. I believe that that could be helpful and should be considered further at stage 3, and I urge the Government to continue working with my colleague to do that.

I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 31, because it delays the act. Trans people have already waited long enough for reform.

I thank the cabinet secretary for setting out her position on the record. I am satisfied with the way that she has described what she is trying to do. I was seeking to make the provision not narrower, but broader, but I understand the cabinet secretary’s rationale, so I will not press amendment 126 and I will vote for her amendments.

Amendment 126, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 127 moved—[Russell Findlay]

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for the helpful conversations that we have had about my amendments in the group. I press amendment 121.

I have lodged amendment 115 because I do not think that it is fair to exclude asylum seekers from the process. My amendment explicitly adds them to the bill, and I encourage members to vote for it for that reason.

I move amendment 115.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I appreciate that.

I am tempted to press the amendment, because I want to put on the record the strength of feeling that there is to include asylum seekers in the bill. I would welcome further discussions at stage 3 if the issue is not addressed in the committee today.

I press amendment 115.

Similarly, I put on record that I will be voting against the amendments in this group, on the basis that they undermine the purpose and the principle of the legislation that we are discussing today. I will be voting against amendments 2, 3 to 17 and 26.

As I said earlier, amendment 154 sets out that before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration, signed by a justice of the peace, a solicitor, a notary public, a commissioner for oaths or any other authorised professional, that they are telling the truth and are fulfilling the criteria in the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. My amendment 122, in the previous group, set out that it was an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration that is false.