Chamber and committees

Okay; I had not started on amendment 1038.

Good morning. We took a lot of evidence last week on the issue of prisons in relation to the bill. I give credit to the clerks that you are here at the right time for us to follow up on what we heard last week, and I will follow on from my colleague Pam Gosal’s line of questioning on one of the concerns that we heard. The whole purpose of the GRC is, of course, to make the process easier. This is a theoretical question and might be difficult to answer fully, but, based on your experience in the Prison Service, do you think that more people in the prison population will seek a GRC if the bill is passed?

Good morning. I have questions on two provisions in the bill: the provision on living in the acquired gender for three months, and the proposed three-month reflection period.

On the provision on living in the acquired gender for three months, we have heard quite a lot of evidence that suggests that that is unnecessary, both from those who generally support the bill and from those who have concerns about the bill. I am happy to hear from the witnesses in any order, but I will start with Anthony Horan, as that is the order that we have used so far. Anthony, what are your thoughts on that specific provision?

I will come back to you on that separately. Chris and Fraser, do you have anything to add?

As well as the potential for an increase in applications for GRCs, it is about bad-faith actors: people applying for a GRC to increase the likelihood of their being moved to another prison setting from the one that they are in, for untoward reasons. Are the policies and procedures that you have in place now robust enough to deal with that scenario? I believe that a witness last week said that it is not likely to occur often, but it could occur, and we need to be aware of that. Are your procedures able to deal with that scenario even if the bill is passed?

Thank you very much for that answer, but before I bring in the other panellists, I should perhaps expand my question a wee bit. I hope that I am not misquoting either side of the debate—I do not think that I am—but, generally speaking, those who are in favour of the bill and its provisions worry that such a period is unnecessary in itself, because the people concerned have been living like this for a long time.

Whether we are talking about three months or two years, though, this is a big, life-changing decision, and those with some concerns about the bill are perhaps concerned about the term “acquired gender” and how it might be defined. Maybe I should have given a bit more of an explanation with my previous question, although I appreciate Anthony Horan’s answer. What are the Rev Karen Hendry’s thoughts?

I have a final question, if that is all right, convener. We spoke about the current policies in the Prison Service, and it was good and reassuring to hear those. It was also helpful to hear the up-to-date position. Will the bill have an impact on how you will manage the situation for people with a GRC and, if so, what will that impact be? Are you confident in being able to manage that?

Thank you for that, Fraser.

In order to be fair, I will put my next question to the witnesses in reverse order. With regard to the three-month reflection period, which Fraser touched on, we have heard concerns that it is perhaps quite demeaning for trans people to have a reflection period. On the other side of the debate, we have heard that the reflection period is perhaps not long enough, particularly, as has been talked about, for younger people, who are going through a lot of changes in their lives. Can you give us your views on the three-month reflection period, as proposed? That question goes first to Fraser Sutherland.

Thank you very much for that; I have a supplementary question for you, before I move to Anthony Horan.

You asked us to tease out where the period comes from when we have the cabinet secretary in front of us—that is a reasonable ask. Do you or the church have a view on whether three months is just about right or too short?

I am happy to support amendment 22, which is in the name of the minister.

On Jamie Greene’s amendments, we talked a lot about this area at stage 1, as the minister will know, and I led the questioning of witnesses on the area for a number of weeks. Jamie Greene talks about there being a debate and different views, but I think that the debate and the different views are among members as opposed to the witnesses, because we had quite consistent feedback from the witnesses. I hope that the minister does not mind my saying that I tried to find some doubt among the witnesses that restricting the days was required, but I could not find any. From the criminal justice agencies to witnesses involved in the welfare of people or animals, they were all pretty supportive of the approach. That backs up the consultation results that the minister referred to. I accept that the exception was possibly the fireworks industry, but that was not its primary concern about the bill; the issue was way down its list. It had other concerns about the bill as a whole, which have already been articulated.

As a result, I do not see the point in taking evidence at quite substantial lengths, as we have done, just to say that we still do not agree with what has been proposed. I am therefore not minded to support what has been proposed. Although I initially had some concerns about restricting the days, they were not backed up by the evidence that we received. The evidence was pretty solid, and it alleviated any concerns that I had, so I do not feel inclined to vote for those amendments.

On Pauline McNeill’s amendment 2, she has said that she will develop her arguments in the debate on the next group, so, out of fairness, I will leave that issue until then.