Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and thank you for what you have said so far. I have a couple of questions that follow on from Fiona Hyslop’s questions. In our town centre and retail sector inquiry, which we are coming to the end of, and in thinking back over the winter, it has become clear that resilience is an issue. It is important to have infrastructure in place, but there is an issue about how we build into that infrastructure the resilience to cope with bad weather events such as storm Arwen and ensure that businesses and residents can move to omnichannel or multimodal interactions, whether that is home working or bricks and clicks in retail.

How does the Scottish Government ensure that we have not only the infrastructure but the support that backs up that infrastructure to ensure access to reliable and resilient connections, and fast access to the maintenance that is required if there are connectivity issues?

I realise that, as you have identified, there are challenges around what is reserved and what we have powers over.

To follow on from that, you have talked about building in connections and networks to secure resilience at local level. Are there alternative models of ownership or control that we should be looking at as well? Obviously, there is an important role for the big broadband corporations and for mobile connectivity to support what we are doing, but community ownership offers something adaptable, flexible and localised that can secure the resilience that smaller towns and villages and rural areas need. What are your thoughts on that?

That is fair enough—and that will be important as hybrid working continues after the pandemic.

I have a question about the use of the application of connectivity, whether it is broadband or mobile connectivity, which might link back to something that Fiona Hyslop was talking about. There are real economic opportunities emerging in relation to issues such as how we use 5G data to manage traffic flows, deal with accidents and better predict supply chain issues, and there are also links into health and food supplies. Where in the policy and strategy landscape is thinking happening around such issues?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us this morning and for the evidence that you are providing today. I also thank the SHRC for the written evidence that it submitted prior to the meeting.

I have a couple of questions for the SHRC and Victor Madrigal-Borloz. Victor, in your opening remarks, you said that the requirements for a gender identification process include its being accessible, fast and widely available. You then said that there are other requirements that you would be prepared to elaborate on. Can you elaborate on requirements that you see as being necessary and important if we are to get the process right?

Professor Sullivan, may I just interrupt you? That is not really the question that I asked. The question that I asked was about the process for getting a GRC, because that is what the bill that we are considering is about. We are not considering how medical records are stored, held or used, or how different lists for different screening processes are managed. Given that there are trans people who do not have a GRC who get—or, possibly, do not get—the medical treatment that they require, why does changing the process of getting a GRC have the impact that you claim that it does?

Thank you. I have just one follow-up. We heard something in a previous session that I suppose comes down to that question of harm and what has been described to us as the competing rights of different groups. I think that you both mentioned in your introductory remarks that it is important for us to keep in mind the notion of confidentiality linked to the privacy of trans people. We heard previously that the right to privacy for trans people going through an accessible non-invasive process would come with very serious consequences. Are you saying that your assessment is that those serious consequences are not based in objective evidence at the moment? Does your assessment indicate that there will not actually be serious harm and that no serious consequences would arise if we were to pass the bill?

Thank you, that is really clear.

No—the distinction that you made at the end of it is really helpful.

Chris, I would like to ask you about your detailed analysis and knowledge of the situation in Denmark. It has been suggested that your research has found that there is a desire in Denmark to make access to medical treatment pathways self-declared, too. Can you say a little more about that? From your analysis and research, what is your position on medical gatekeeping in relation to the different stages of transition that people might go through?

Thank you, that is helpful.

In your view, is depathologisation an integral part of the bill that we are scrutinising?

Thanks. That is helpful.

A moment ago, you talked about the importance of language, how it is used and the need for it to be clear and not dehumanising. I was struck by one of your earlier comments in response to one of Rachael Hamilton’s questions on data collection and people answering the sex question based on a process of self-identification or self-declaration. You likened it to the age question, and I think that you said that we do not expect people to

“make up whatever age they like.”

Are you saying that people make up whatever gender they like?