Chamber and committees

I agree with all the points that have been made. I agree with the first few members who spoke about the difficulties that Police Scotland clearly faces, and with Katy Clark when she outlined what the committee’s role could be in the matter. There are processes such as pay negotiations to go through, which I know are happening.

Pauline McNeill touched on this, but I found one of the things that Calum Steele said in his letter quite strong. We need to get to the bottom of it and understand what it is. I will read it out. He says:

“It is also noteworthy that palpable anger remains across the PSoS as to how police officers were treated by Government, the Service, and the SPA during the height of the Coronavirus pandemic.”

We need to try to understand what that refers to. Pauline McNeill raised the issue of vaccinations. Is the anger that Calum Steele mentioned just about that or were other things going on? We need to tease out what that means. The committee could have a role in trying to understand that and give advice about how the situation could be improved. I found that to be quite a strong statement.

Dr Dunne, do you have any thoughts on the matter?

My apologies to the convener and to all present for being late today. I was impacted by the rail strikes, as I am sure that the convener has already reflected.

I will ask questions around the provisions in the bill in relation to the three-month period for reflection and the three-month period for living in the “acquired gender”, as it is referred to. I apologise at the outset if any of the panellists have already covered those areas. Although I had access to the session remotely, witnesses will understand that there were certain periods during what was quite a lengthy journey when it was not possible to pay quite as much attention.

Does Barbara Bolton have any thoughts on the provision around living in the acquired gender for three months? We have heard widespread criticism of it from—if you like—both sides of the argument. Do you have any thoughts on where the committee might want to take that particular provision in the bill?

I know that the convener has said that we are tight for time, but I have one final question. Do you have any thoughts on the term “acquired gender”, about which, as you will have heard, there has been quite a lot of discussion in previous evidence sessions?

Thank you for that. I heard your earlier comment, but it is particularly important to get on record the concerns that you laid out. Before going to Victor Madrigal-Borloz, I was going to ask you about the three-month reflection period as well. I was also going to give Ian Duddy and Cathy Asante a chance to come in, but if you are best placed to talk about the three-month reflection period, that is fine.

Thank you very much. Victor, do you have any comments on the three-month reflection period or the current requirement in the bill to live in one’s acquired gender for three months?

Good afternoon, and thank you for your input so far.

I want to ask the panel the questions that I asked the previous panel, which is the same line of questioning that I have pursued in previous weeks. If you managed to watch any of the session with the previous panel, you will know that I am going to ask about the provisions in the bill on living in the “acquired gender”, as it is termed, for three months and the three-month reflection period. Do you have any views on the requirement that an applicant must live in the acquired gender for three months prior to submitting an application? Do you have any views on the term “acquired gender”? We have heard quite widespread criticism of that provision.

Thank you. I turn to the three-month reflection period. I will start with Dr Dietz this time, in case the same happens again. What are your thoughts on that?

That is great—thank you.

The difficulty of coming in at the end of the evidence session is that most of the points that I was going to ask about have been covered. However, I will try to put a slightly different slant on the matter.

With Rona Mackay and, of course, the clerks, I was involved in the progress of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill through the Parliament at stages 1 and 2—obviously, the whole Parliament was involved latterly. It is good to see the fruition of that and how passionate you are about your work because, in many respects, you and your small team are the bill. The work that you are doing is really good.

I will not lie to you: if I remember correctly, the bill was very technical and involved some long mornings in committee—I am sure that Rona Mackay would back me up on that, given that she asked for my assistance earlier. It is therefore good to see somebody who is passionate about the role and brings the process to life for us as we hear about your work.

My question is about the collaborative work that you are doing with counterparts in the UK. As you said in your opening statement, there is a lot of overlap between the various pieces of legislation. You have covered most of that, but I ask you to put on record where you think the collaboration work will go in future. What are your thoughts on working with Fraser Sampson and others in future and where that collaboration will go if different legislation is put in place? For example, if other powers are devolved to Scotland, how might that work?