Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 10 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1981 contributions

|

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

My question is on a point of clarification. On 6 October, the committee agreed that interpretations of whether someone was living in the acquired gender could lead to reinforcement of gender stereotypes and that it would be unacceptable to enshrine that in law. Do you agree with that?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

To clarify, will that be in the guidance for the registrar general? Will there be a definition of what it means to live in an acquired gender?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Cabinet secretary, I am very supportive of Sarah Boyack’s amendment and I am disappointed that you have highlighted its inconsistencies, despite the fact that Sarah Boyack said at the outset that it is a generalised and probing amendment. I think that it could be complemented by giving the Scottish ministers a duty to report on some of the issues that Sarah Boyack is trying to raise. The amendment complements the reporting requirements that Christine Grahame is seeking to introduce, as well as the provisions on data collection. Normally, the Scottish ministers are responsible for data collection.

I therefore ask you to change your mind, cabinet secretary, and to work with the Conservatives and Labour to find something on which we can all agree. Quite frankly, the process has not had much cross-party consensus, but this is one area where I think that we can work together.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

I remind the member that we had a free vote in our party.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

But that would not be in the bill.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Can you clarify the point that you made about notaries public? I presume that that referred to witnesses of declarations of living in the acquired gender. Who are those notaries public? Do they include city councillors?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Thank you, cabinet secretary. So—despite some murmurs from your officials to the side—city councillors can be included in that.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

Although I understand the motive for Carol Mochan’s amendment 117—to try to implement a safeguard in the process—we will not support it, as we cannot envisage that NHS or other services will miraculously improve, because the Scottish Government’s reforms of self-identification will open up our medical services and the other services included in Carol Mochan’s amendment to a wider group of people, therefore putting them under more pressure.

Christine Grahame’s amendments are creative but ill thought through. How can we, as elected members in this place, guarantee that young people who are at a vulnerable age generally receive the support that they need? I am disappointed that the Scottish Government is attempting to use young people as collateral damage to water down the bill to appease their own Scottish National Party rebels.

I am disillusioned by the cabinet secretary’s sceptical approach. The Cass review is a key piece of work. The cabinet secretary has not taken heed of the interim review. I agree, however, that we should consider what the full review says.

Living in an acquired gender for at least three months is an arbitrary figure, plucked from nowhere, without evidence, like the other three-month figure in the bill.

Martin Whitfield’s amendments are flawed, because they presume that the registrar general has the ability to determine capacity, which is something that was never explored in evidence during conversations on the statutory declaration.

On a positive note, I welcome the offer from Fulton MacGregor and Pam Duncan-Glancy to work together in the future.

I press amendment 18.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 15 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Tess White for their constructive amendments. We are happy to support the introduction of asylum seekers to the bill, as asylum seekers can be classified as “ordinarily resident” in Scotland. I also urge members to support my colleague Tess White’s amendment, which would strengthen the definition of the term “ordinarily resident” to provide clarity for everyone, including asylum seekers.

Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Petition

Meeting date: 9 November 2022

Rachael Hamilton

My colleague Ariane Burgess asked a question about high nature value land and biodiversity. Morag, you have just mentioned looking at the funding depending on what needs to be protected in terms of that value. You did not describe it as such, but Patrick Krause describes it in that way. I wonder how NatureScot came up with the criteria. Are they based on the number of geese that are predicted in the count; on the loss of value of the crop, because you also said that you pay compensation; or on the loss of biodiversity value? You said in your previous answer that they are not based on high nature value. Is there some contradiction there?