Good morning, and welcome to the 17th meeting of session six of the Qualities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning. First agenda item for today is to continue to take evidence on the Gender Recognition of Scotland Bill. I welcome our first panel to the meeting. Paul Loh, Register general for Scotland and keepers of the record of Scotland, national records of Scotland, who is joining us virtually. James Kerr, Deputy Chief Executive and Robert Strachyn, Head of Strategy and Improvement, Scottish Prison Service, and Dr Kevin Guyann University of Glasgow. I refer members to papers 1 and 2, and can I ask our witnesses to make some short opening statements, starting with Paul Loaf, please? Good morning, convener. Thank you very much for the invite to this session. I'll keep my remarks brief. My role as Registrar General will be to implement the elements of the legislation as they relate to my functions and the functions of NRS. NRS has a very long tradition of dealing with similar life matters since the introduction of civil registration in 1855. We obviously administer the systems for births, deaths and marriage registration and also adoptions, and more recently the regime around civil partnership. We have a broad experience in dealing with the different sensitivities and importance of these life events. My role will be to execute the will of the Parliament and the terms of the legislation as they are ultimately passed. I'm happy to take any questions. Okay, thank you very much, and now James Kerr, please. Thank you, convener. I start this morning by thanking the committee for the invitation to attend today's meeting. I see today's meeting as an opportunity to reaffirm the Scottish Prison Service's commitment to creating a culture where equality of opportunity, diversity and human rights are actively valued and promoted and where discrimination is not tolerated. To be clear about our commitment to progressing, predicting and promoting the rights of all the people we care for in Scotland's prisons, to illustrate our individualised risk assessment approach to the placement and management of those in our care, does not conflict with our continuing strong commitment to advance equality and protect the rights of all and is consistent with our wider commitment to the health, safety and wellbeing of the people who live and work in Scottish prisons. Also, to update the committee on the Scottish Prison Service policy review that is currently under way and the constructive engagement that has taken place so far with a range of stakeholders across communities of identity and interest, including staff and service users. The Scottish Prison Service is a rights-based public service. We play a distinctive role in Scottish society that we take extremely seriously, not just safety and security, but public protection, supporting wellbeing, rehabilitation and reintegration. We know that we must play that role in a way in which it protects the rights of the individual and the rights of those around them. The individualised way in which we place and manage and care for transgender people is an example of how we do this, how we protect the rights of the individual and the rights of others. Moreover, we do so in a way in which there is no conflict, management of risk with gender identity. Thank you. Dr Guy Ann, I apologise for mispronouncing your Sunday mail-in. Decisions made about who to count, what to count and how to count are not value-neutral, but bring to life a certain vision of the world around us. Data should reflect the vibrancy, the messiness, the ups and downs of our experiences. It should not define who we are or how we live our lives. Thank you, committee, for the invitation to present evidence today. I will focus my contribution on aspects of the bill related to the collection, analysis and use of data, as it reflects my expertise as a researcher, particularly in relation to LGBTQ data in Scotland. The vast majority of data collection exercises in Scotland across Scotland's public, private and voluntary sectors do not currently ask questions about an individual's legal sex. In other words, and in plain English, how someone answers a sex question in a survey or another data collection exercise is not contingent on whether or not that individual has a gender recognition certificate. Ahead of today's evidence session are reviewed major data collection activities that involve the capture of information about sex. This included quantitative social research, reporting requirements for the quality acts, public sector quality duty, gender pay gap reporting, crime and police records and census data. All of those data collection activities follow a self-identification approach that acknowledges that individuals are best placed to describe themselves. There is nothing radical about a self-identification approach to data. It is the status quo in social research and is used for all questions on race, religion, sexual orientation and disability. Those opposed to the bill or those working to delay its passage through Parliament cite concerns about data collection or the lack of existing data. I have witnessed through my work how demands for more and more data can operate as a stalling mechanism to stall meaningful action. The mention of data can obscure the topic under discussion and give credence to abstract concerns about policymaking and the law. Committee contrary to claims that we need more data, I believe that we are drowning in data that demonstrates the need for reform. The proposal for a self-declaration system is not untested. It is happening today in many countries around the world and has been happening for the past 10 years. Although my work focuses on data, we cannot lose sight of the people behind the numbers. It is vital that we design data collection tools that are robust and inclusive, engaging as many people as possible. I therefore wish to reiterate that data collection activities in Scotland do not currently ask individuals to share information about the sex recorded on the birth certificate or GRC. With this fundamental point in mind, the bill will not impact the collection analysis and presentation of data. If I can come to you first to ask a question about the processing and assessing of applications for GRCs. Can you outline how you would go about it? Would it be merely accepting the statutory declaration at face value? What checks and balances would you envisage having in place? The legislation is founded on the principle of that legal declaration and there being legal sanctions for people who deliberately make fraudulent applications. Obviously, we will design application processes and systems and ways of confirming some of the information that has passed to us. However, it is not our role in the system unless there is evidence to the contrary to contradict people's satisfaction in the legislation and making those declarations to us. Obviously, there are procedures envisaging the legislation if either myself or my staff or others are concerned about an application that has been made through escalation to the sheriff court as well. That would be an important additional protection and certainly one that, if we had any concerns, we would be open to using ourselves. If I can just follow on from that, there will be conditions that need to be satisfied for any GRC application and you will then be required to give information as to the effect of the GRC as per section 3 of the bill. Have you determined what that information will include and what you will be looking for in that? Not at this stage. I think that we recognise also that the bills at stage 1 and is liable to some changes potentially. I think that what we will do is we will design our processes and procedures and information to ensure that it is compatible with the actors as passed by the Parliament. We have started preliminary work looking at these issues, but I wouldn't say that we have got a concluded point on that yet. Once the bill is at stage 3, would that be when you would determine what that would be? In any process, would you seek clarification around any evidence that is required or anything like that? Thanks for clarifying that. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government and the policy teams devising the bill and the legislation. There is regular dialogue between our teams on the practicalities of the system in relation to the policy and the legislation. Obviously, there is the potential for some provision of regulations made by myself to add further detail if required. There is something about keeping in touch with how the legislation develops and evolving those issues as we go along. However, it would be premature to say that he is a definitive set of guidance or information that we would issue at this stage. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for your opening statements. I found them really helpful. My first question is to Paul if that is okay as well. I wondered if you could set out what the effect of a statutory declaration is and give another example or other examples of how they are used in Scotland today? Thanks. Statutory declarations are used for a range of different application procedures. Obviously, when people marry, they make statutory declarations as an example, but many procedures, including when people apply for benefits or a range of other services, they are making a statutory declaration about their circumstances and the accuracy of that. Obviously, the bill, as it has currently formed, anticipates legal sanctions for people who make fraudulent declarations against a statutory declaration in this procedure. On that particular point, do you think that there is a need for the bill to include the offence or is it already an offence in other legislation? Do you have any understanding of why that is included in that particular bill? I think that there are general principles of criminal law around fraud, but it is not uncommon in my experience for there to be specific criminal sanctions in pieces of finding legislation in relation to applications, whether it is marriage or whether it is in other forms of law. I do not see it as unusual that it is included in the legislation. Obviously, if people make false declarations in marriage or other things, those are serious matters as well, so it feels relevant and proportionate to what we would see with other legislation in my view. On the point about the regulation that you mentioned earlier, can you give us an indication as to what kind of support and guidance you would be able to offer people who are applying for a gender recognition certificate? Have you had any conversations with the Government around the guidance that was mentioned in the bill? In particular, could you comment on what additional support you would be able to offer 16 and 17-year-olds? I think that it is important that we separate out two sources of advice and guidance. There is advice and guidance to someone who is taking decisions as to whether they are going to apply for a gender recognition certificate and to change their sex through that, and then there is the advice that you provide to someone who is dealing with the process of applying for the certificate. My role is not to replace the current medical panel, or it is to establish an administrative system to allow people to apply legally for a gender recognition certificate. The function of my organisation is to provide support and advice to people about the process and how they do it and support in doing so. It is not for us to provide advice and support about how they make important personal life decisions. What we would anticipate is that there will be organisations out there who will be capable of providing personal support and advice to people who are struggling or want additional information on those elements, and that is the nature of the conversations that we are having with the Scottish Government at the moment. I would see it entirely compatible that, if somebody were to apply to my organisation, we would provide through our website correspondence and various other routes information of groups that they can access to provide them with advice on the broader issues of changing their sex. My organisation will, in addition, provide information about how the process works and what is required, and how it works and what is the consequence of applying for and achieving a gender recognition certificate. I think that there is something about that core offer from us about the process, how it works, the consequences of it, and then there is a broader support wrapper, which is about the broader decision making for that individual and what that means, and accessing support and advice. I would see our role as NRS in signposting and linking people to that. I think that it would be difficult if we were to try and cover both of those as we were ultimately there to make independent decisions about applications, not to steer individuals in their personal decision making. In terms of 16 and 17-year-olds, we are very conscious of the sensitivity around this issue as the bill was introduced. Our proposal would certainly be that, for 16 and 17-year-olds, we would offer phone and potentially face-to-face conversations with those individuals. That would not be of an investigatory nature. That would be of a support nature. It would be optional. That individual would not need to take that offer up, but we would, as a matter of course, make that contact and make that offer as part of the process. I have one further question, if that is okay, convener. That is very helpful. At what point do you think that you would be giving people or signposting people to those organisations and what kind of organisations are they? Have you mentioned that you would give information on the consequences of a gender recognition certificate in changing your sex? Can you tell us a bit about what you expect that advice to look like? In terms of your first point, there is still scope and need for conversations about what those organisations would be and how that support would be accessed. That is areas that we will continue to discuss with the Scottish Government. In terms of your latter point, there is something about people understanding the legal consequences of being given a gender recognition certificate. That is predominantly where I am coming from. In the current process, under the medical panel, NRS register decisions taken by the gender recognition panel hold a register of people who have applied and achieved GRCs through the current process. As part of that, as the organisation responsible for birth and adoption registration, we engage with those individuals and provide them with an outline of their new birth certificate or their new adoption extract certificate as part of showing them what that would look like and what that would involve before they formally issued it. I would see that there would be some engagement with individuals around their understanding of what achieving a GRC means in a legal context, but also in terms of what that means in relation to their birth and adoption certificate and how that information will be recorded. I would like to ask, in terms of people at the moment who are applying for a GRC, do you, within the organisation, have a process for feedback? Do you have anything that you can tell us about that? Sorry, was that a question for me? Yes. We obviously engage with the current medical panel and other registrar generals across the UK on those matters. It is probably hard to ask stage of the process because we are ultimately receiving an outcome, a decision that the panel has already taken after their consideration, and our involvement in the process is then more about recording that in the Scottish register and then liaising with those individuals in relation to their revised birth or adoption certificates. I probably do not have any specific, unique insights that NRS has on the process, based on where we sit at the moment. I know that the committee had previously given various sources of evidence and views from different groups on that. I would recognise and understand those views, but I do not think that we have got anything new or additional or any kind of significant feedback that we get through our process at the present time, I am afraid. No problem. In terms of staff training—I do not know whether that is operational—with the process of obtaining a GRC, it is potentially becoming easier for people. You might have more people coming forward and more work to deal with. Are staff trained and able to have that appropriate communications with people? Yes, those are very important questions. There is obviously no hard formula for how many applications will result from this. I know that the Scottish Government has done some modelling and anticipates somewhere in the order of 250, maybe 300 applications a year based on international experience. We will need to see at the moment that we are basing our assumptions around that. We will appoint a small additional team, probably of three to four people, who will handle those. We will obviously need to keep track of what the volumes look like over time. Those individuals will receive training and support. It sits within a broader picture of the type of advice and support that we have to provide to a range of people. If I can provide a relevant example, we hold the sealed court records and decisions for adopted people in Scotland, and we have an adoptions team in place. We have individuals who come to see us and, effectively, we are opening court decision papers for the first time, and that individual is seeing it. In that scenario, we have private space. We have individuals who—people can bring somebody to support them, and the staff are trained to provide that support. Obviously, it can be a very emotive and difficult topic for those individuals. Again, we will sign and post people to other sources of advice, including birth link and various other things. We have staff who are familiar with dealing with those sorts of issues. We also have people who change their name, which can be quite an important and significant event in life and providing them with support and advice. We undertake the registration of a new belief body, so we have to provide advice and support to them in those circumstances. We have staff in the registration space who undertake a broad range of duties, including dealing with local authority registrars and people going through the registration process. While that is new, there are close parallels to other things that we already do. Just to let the witnesses know that we are grouping the questions that we have just now, so it is not that all the questions are going to be for Paul, but I think that a final talk for Paul from Pamdak in Glancy. Thank you, convener. We will come to you shortly. It just occurred to me—I should have asked when I had my turn a minute ago—so forgive me to go back to a question that I asked you about. Do you expect the information that you give out on the basis of the consequences of a gender recognition certificate to change significantly after the legislation, or will it continue if the legislation was passed, or will it continue to be the same kind of information that you are giving just now on the effect of a GRC? At present, we do not have that role. It is the medical panel and the committee that takes the decision. The information that is provided to individuals going through the gender recognition process at the moment is not something that NRS does. What we do is receive the decision from the panel who decided to agree or refuse an application. We register that on our gender recognition register and work with the individual in relation to their birth certificate. We are very much at the end of the current process. It would be for the panel and the current UK application process to point out the legislation and the importance and significance of those events. We do not do that at the moment. That would be an area that we would need to build in the new process. Obviously, it is important for people to understand when they are signing, for example, a declaration, the importance of that declaration and indeed the potential sanctions that might exist if there were to make fraudulent declarations in their application. I just want clarification on whether you believe that the GRC that is issued to anyone who is born in Scotland aged 16 or over will be available to anyone else living in the rest of the UK. They are born in Scotland but they live in the rest of the UK. What happens there? I guess that there are two possible elements to the answer. In terms of being accessible to everyone else, the answer is no, because the gender recognition register is confidential. The legislation currently is formed anyway. It places an obligation on me to make registrar generals for England, Wales and Northern Ireland aware of those activities. That is being engaged with our counterparts on a range of different registration activities. That is nothing particularly new, but we will obviously need to build the process where we make sure that there is a flow of that information to the registrar generals in the other parts of the UK. That applies to, if somebody applied from, say, an English prison. Is that the same system? The process, the responsibilities to make the registrar general of England, Wales and Northern Ireland aware, is where the person is from England, Wales, Northern Ireland or is ordinarily resident there, but applied in Scotland, if I recall, from the legislation. Moving on to some issues around the prison service, can we start with Pam Gossel, please? Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel, and thank you for your opening statements. An FOI revealed that, as of December 3, 2021, there was 11 trans women held in the Scottish Prison Service and that more than half are housed in female estate. Of those that are not, why is that? Are they without a GRC? My question goes to James Kerr. Thank you very much for your question. I can give you updated figures as of 31 March. We currently have 16 people in custody, so that's the updated position for that. The crux of the approach that we currently take with our gender identity and gender reassignment policy is such that it's an individualised approach, so it's a case-by-case basis. Panel members will be aware that a person divulging whether or not they have a GRC is completely voluntary, so whilst we would ask them that they are under no obligation to share that information with us. I think that it's reflective to answer the question why people are placed where they're placed. It's based upon a consideration of a range of issues, one of which would be the GRC if it's declared and other issues would include the wishes and welfare of the person concerned themselves, a consideration of those that may live around that person, the placing of that person within the prison estate, not just the prison but the actual hall or the residential setting within there and whether or not self-sharing would be appropriate for that person and also how that person would access services within that particular prison. Considering all of those issues, it would determine where someone was held. Currently, I can tell you that in terms of transgender males, there are 75 per cent held within the female estate and 25 per cent within the male estate. In transgender women, it's a 50-50 split, so 50 per cent are held in the female estate and 50 per cent in the male estate. Again, that would be reflective of the individualised case conference approach to those people and their journey through custody. On the consideration that you have spoken about, one of the considerations is the GRC whenever it's declared. We know that the Scottish Prison Service's gender identity and gender reassignment policy is currently under review and may well be revised to also give priority status, as it were, to the GRC holders. Those opposed to the bill believe that by removing the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, obtaining GRC will be significantly easier for prisoners, so the number of those with GRC and therefore entitled to be held in women's state will likely rise. Let me be clear on this. This is about creating a balance between transgender related rights and the safety and wellbeing of female prison population, protecting them from bad faith actors. It is about being fair to all. Do you think that a fair way to reassure female prisoners would be for an amendment in the bill to say that the GRC is not effective in prison allocations? Thanks very much for that question. Panel members will be aware that it wouldn't be the Scottish Prison Service's position to comment on whether or not exemptions should be applied to the bill. What I could say is that the GRC for most people will be a significant life event. Given that I order an approach that adopts a multidisciplinary open case-conferenced approach, that will achieve its end best when we get full engagement by the person concerned, so providing recognition over the declared GRC status would ensure that we do that. We currently do not see it being a major impact for us. As I described the numbers, 16 people against, I think we unlocked this morning, 7,409, and I would anticipate this year that we would see in the region of and possibly in excess of 15,000 people travel through our prisons on a daily basis. Even if there were an increase of people that asked for support relative to transgender issues, we do not see it as having a large operational impact for us. Is the prison service ready for if that increase does happen to provide that service? We are ready to respond to if there is a potential increase in the number of people that have a GRC status within the prison setting. Sorry, just one more to follow up on that. You talked about the consideration being that one of them on the GRC is being declared. Alongside that, would you be taking any other things into account as well or would you just be looking at the GRC? No, a GRC would be one, albeit important, element of the consideration. Broadly speaking, we would consider the wishes and welfare of the person concerned, whether they had a GRC or whether it was a social gender issue. Part of that consideration would be the welfare of other people in that location, whether it be men or women, whether it be the male or female estate. Part would be access to services and part would be self-sharing in terms of whether they are not a single cell occupancy or actually sharing with somebody that might be seen as a support and not a threat. Our wish would be that we could have a correlation between the wellbeing of others, the wishes and welfare of the person concerned and the good ordering of the prison and access to services that were all the same things. However, where that is not, we would narrate a defendable decision around the best information that we have available at that point, covering a range of issues. Thank you. Robert, were you wanting to come in and comment on that a year ago? No, I think that you're okay. Okay, Fulton MacGregor, please. Thanks, convener, and good morning to the panel. We took quite a lot of evidence last week on the issue of prisons in relation to this bill, so credit to the clerks who have come in at the right time, so we can follow up what we heard last week by asking you about this week. I think that just following on from my colleague Pam Gossel's line of questioning there, one of the concerns that we heard was that the whole purpose of the GRC, of course, is to make the process easier. Do you think, and I know that it's a theoretical question, might be difficult to give a full answer to, but do you think, based on your experience in the prison service, that more people will seek a GRC if this bill is passed? What people within the prison population? Thanks very much for the question. It's difficult to absolutely predict, in terms of the impact or the outcome of the bill, if it does become an act. As I said, I don't think that my assessment of you is that we're not dealing with large numbers here, and we are confident that our current policy and our revised policy, which at this time we would anticipate would still take the approach of an individualised multidisciplinary case conference, it would be able to respond to any increases therein. As well as the potential for an increase in applications for GRC, as has been mentioned earlier, people applying for a GRC for untoward reasons to perhaps increase the likelihood of being in another prison setting from what they're possibly in at that point in time.  I think that even our panel last week said that it's not a likely scenario to occur a lot, but it could occur, and that's something that we need to be aware of. Are the procedures in place just now able to deal with that even if the bill is passed? It's difficult to have an absolute answer to that. I would say that applying risk assessments relative to how we care for and manage people in custody is a well trodden path for the Scottish Prison Service, so there is good experience and expertise across a range of professions that actually make those decisions. Might people try and use a GRC for nefarious purposes? Yes, that is one possibility, but the GRC is only one aspect of the consideration that we would give the care and placement of that individual in custody. I would be confident that, as I say, our current approach and what we anticipate the outcome of the review being in that, it would still follow that individualised, multidisciplinary, open-case-conferenced risk assessment approach being able to respond to that. I would add that, as panel members and committee members will be aware, risk assessment is not an exact science. It's a judgment call based upon the available information and facts that we have at that time. However, as I said at the start, it's a well trodden path for SPS and we use it on a number of factors in terms of placing and managing people through prison. I think that we have obviously spoken about the current policies within the prison service. It's really good and reassured to hear that. You had all the up-to-date positions, which I think was really helpful. However, what do you think that the bill, as you see it going through, does it have any impact on how you are going to manage the situation for people with a GRC going forward? If it does, what is that impact? Are you confident in being able to manage it? We don't think that at this time there would be any major impact on our response approach to supporting transgender people through custody. There may be a slight increase in numbers as a consequence of that, but, as I said earlier, we are confident that we can provide the response. Thank you very much. I want to follow up on a couple of things that you said. I don't know if Robert MacDonald might be appropriate for you to come in here, but that's up to you. You have mentioned that the gender identity and gender assignment policy is currently up for review. Is it just part of the periodic cycle of reviews that has led to the current review? Are there issues or concerns that have triggered at this time? I will come in on something else related to that, but if you can start with that. The review was undertaken for a range of reasons. It was paused due to Covid, and we recommenced the review spring last year. We went through quite a meticulous process to design the review, as it were, because we knew that the process was going to be as important as content. We went through all the methodology design, and we commenced engagement with service users and staff in December, and the committee will be aware of that. We had written to the committee at that time to alert you to the review kicking off. We are currently going through the engagement and evidence stage of the review, so we are not yet at the analysis and recommendations stage of the review. There are a lot of questions that we are not going to be able to answer today about the review, because we have not conducted the analysis. I assure the committee that the extent of the engagement has included and learned the lessons from the previous review on the quality and impact assessment that was conducted at that time. We are engaging with staff, service users and stakeholders across a range of communities of interest and identity. I cannot give you detail on the feedback from the review, but, if the committee will permit me, I could give you some observations on what we have had. First of all, the spirit of the review has been really positive. I know that it is interesting to see what happens on the line, but, when you speak to people face to face, humanity tends to take over. It has been a really positive engaging review. Everybody that we have engaged with has been very constructive from across all communities of interest and identity. We continually need to improve the transparency and communications on that issue, not just as a prison service but as a public body. We have taken steps to introduce quarterly data reporting on the transgender population as part of our wider reporting on equalities in human rights. We will be happy to share that with the committee, if you would like. That is our role to try to explain the reality of what is happening with transgender people in our care. The third observation that I would make is that there have been some real convergence points across the review. Everybody that we have spoken to so far wants people's rights respected. They want risks to be managed effectively, and they want needs to be met. In some ways, the divergence points tend to come when you look at how we achieve those things rather than what we want to achieve. That is something that we will need to consider as part of the review process. Thank you very much for that, Robert. That is really helpful. I completely understand that you cannot go into the analysis or recommendations because you are not at that stage yet. When the review was kicked off, paused and restarted again, was there any sense that there needed to be a radical change to that multidisciplinary, holistic risk assessment process as part of the policy, or was it just looking to see how generally things could be better? We are a learning organisation. We are always looking to see if we can do things better. We have to do that. We have a serious role to play in Scotland, and we take it very seriously. It is incumbent on us to keep learning and improving. The policy review seeks to identify if we can do it in a better way and in a way that is consistent with our obligations as a public body and as an executive agency of the Scottish Government and as a prison system. That is what we are trying to do. There were lessons learned from the previous policy development in 2014. Those are well documented. We have recognised that the equality impact assessment, for example, in 2014, did not go far enough. I think that that is recognition of the fact that we need to make sure that we are conducting it properly in this review. We have mainstreamed it into the review. We are not leaving it until the end. We are encouraging that conversation about equalities in human rights as part of our engagement so that we can recognise the full impacts and how those impacts can be mitigated. Do you see any potential issue with what could happen? There is divergence in how the Scottish prison service deals with GRC's gender reassignment more generally and how things happen elsewhere in the UK. Do you see any problems if there does end up being divergence, given changes that have happened south of the border? We have been engaging with other prison services as part of the review, and we have also looked at international experiences to see what we can learn from other prison services. We are keen to learn and make sure that we understand the evidence and that we can apply anything that would work better than the individualised case management approach. What we are looking to do is to use all the evidence from our feedback from stakeholders, from our feedback from service users and staff, along with the wider evidence base to assess what those policy options are. We will happily give you an update on that once we have completed that policy assessment exercise. However, if we discover a more effective way of keeping people safe and meeting our obligations as a public body, managing risk and meeting needs of people, then that is what we will be looking to do. My questions follow similarly to my colleagues Maggie and Fulton and Karen's.  Has that happened? I do not have those figures with me today, but I will be happy to share them with the committee if I can in writing after today's session. Then another basic question is about can people who are currently in your care make statutory declarations? In terms of any statutory declaration, are there any restrictions around people's ability to make a statutory declaration whilst they are in prison? Can we check that and come back to you and we will pride that in writing as well after today's session? Thank you. I am not deliberately being back up. I am just keen to understand the likelihood, to be honest, of someone being in prison and then choosing that moment to… My desired answer is to say that no one's statutory rights and entitlements should be impacted on directly as a consequence of being in prison, but we will check that and provide that in response to the committee after today's session. Thank you. I appreciate that. That is helpful. We know that you are reviewing the policy just now and thank you so much for setting out the way and the detail that you have. We have heard last week in particular, but throughout the course of the evidence that we are gathering about some undesirable circumstances that might have happened in prisons elsewhere in the UK. Are you able to say why that has happened elsewhere? I am assuming, because we have not heard that there are particular similar circumstances happening in Scotland. If there are, it would be good to hear about that. However, what would you say is the reason that perhaps it is different in the Ministry of Justice to what is happening in Scotland just now? I do not know if I can answer that, to be honest. We are looking at all the evidence that we can and as much detail as we can to see what learning is available across prison systems, including colleagues south of the border. They have a different approach to the way that we work. We respect gender identity for people in our care, but we also have to make sure that we are managing risks in meeting needs and understanding the evidence and available information to help us to do that. There is a potential learning that we need to gather from south of the border and other prison services. For example, I know that they have a dedicated wing for transgender people in the women's estate south of the border. We do not have that type of approach, so it is about looking at that type of example and assessing whether that type of approach would fulfil our policy commitments and intent in a better way than we currently do. That would be one of the options that we would look at as part of the policy review, but we have to do it in a way that completely respects gender identity and takes into account the risks and needs not just of the person involved but others around them. That is what the review is seeking to do. We will share any lessons learned as part of the publication of the review. Thank you. I appreciate that. Could you characterise for us the experience of trans people and how they are living in prisons? I appreciate that the numbers are very small, but could you characterise what their experience is and what their experience is of the other women who perhaps are sharing the prison estate with trans people? How is that going so far? That is one of the key areas of focus of the policy review. We have undertaken interviews with transgender people in our care. We have circulated 400 surveys across the women's estate and across the men's estate, and we will be supplementing that with interviews and focus groups to unpick the feedback from across the women's estate and the men's estate. We have not done the analysis on that yet, so I cannot give you the outcome of that, so there is no evidence to back up. Anecdotally, I would not want to comment. I am nearly finished if that is okay. Do you have any understanding of how it is working in other countries that have already got a self-decloration system and what their approach to the prison population has been? We are currently just about to do the analysis, so I cannot give you the outcome of that, unfortunately, but I would be happy to share that once that analysis is complete. I was just going back on your earlier question on the lived experience of people in our care. It is anecdotal, but if you look at the numbers in the spread, it would suggest that the individualised approach is actually working. I think that the committee might have heard about the predominance of the consideration of GRC and its relativity in terms of where people are placed within the gendered estate, if you will. That is not our experience to date. The other comparison by HMPPS is the economy of scale issue. Roughly speaking, they are 10 times the size of yours, so their footfall would be 10 times that of ours. Although it might be appropriate for prisons in England and Wales, they have, as Rob described, a wing for transgender people. I suppose that the ideology that we are trying to do is to, for wanting a better phrase, normalise people's experiences as much as we can within a prison setting, and not every trans man wants to be placed in the male estate, or not every trans woman wants to be placed in the female estate. That is our experience to date. Where we can safely accommodate that, considering the impact on the regime, the welfare of others, we would try to do that. I appreciate that clarification and, in particular, the point about normalisation and the differences between the prison system elsewhere. My final question is on—you have touched on that, but I get just for the record, I suppose. Just now, your gender recognition certificate is, I think I have written down specifically, one part important, but it is one part of the process. Have you considered the legal effect of a gender recognition certificate and, in your policy review, have you looked at any legal advice that you have been given around the effect of that in future? I think that the convention prevents us answering specifically about legal advice specifically, but what we could say is that it would be normal practice for us as an organisation to take legal advice in terms of policy design, policy evolution. Mr Kerr said that, regarding the allocation of prison accommodation, I just want some clarity around part 13 in the prisons and young offenders institution Scotland rules 2011. How does that work with the policy that you have? In those particular rules, it states that female prisoners must not share the same accommodation as male prisoners, but is it the current policy that states that accommodation policy should reflect the gender in which the person in custody is living in breach of those rules? How do those work together? The policy tries to fulfil all of our statutory and regulatory obligations in the right way, in accordance with the expectations of SPS as a public body and a prison service, including the prison rules and how they are interpreted. It fully respects gender identity, but it also takes into account any risks or needs or vulnerabilities that we identify through the multi-agency case conference. We do not see that as our position that would run counter to our regulatory and statutory framework. It is our position that a gender recognition certificate is a factor that we have to take into account when deciding on how to place and manage people in our care, but it is not the only factor. Do you think that it would be difficult to challenge or override the individualised assessment that SPS would normally allow? Do you feel that you are going to be vulnerable to legal challenge? We take legal advice as a matter of course on policy development, but I do not think that I would be able to answer that question. Would it be possible for you, Mr Kerr? Thanks for that question. As I was saying earlier on, a risk assessment as committee members will be aware is not an exact science. To answer your question, how would we respond to a legal challenge or could that actually happen? Yes, of course it could, and that can happen in a variety of circumstances, even where we place someone in a prison. I think that the committee heard evidence recently that prisons can be quite a litigious environment. People can raise legal claims for a number of different issues. Very few people want to be in prison, so it is an environment that invites challenge. It is right that any subjective decision in terms of the care and placement of an individual should be subject to challenge, but we have to ensure that decisions that we take in terms of how we place and care for someone in custody are cognisant of all the facts and information that we have. As far as we can garner at that time that it is defendable, we would have to respond to any legal challenge thereafter. Sorry, can you hear me now? Thanks, convener. Something that was raised last week at committee and often crops up in the discourse is sexual relations within prisons. I would like to seek some clarity on the position of the Scottish Prison Service and sexual relations and intercourse within prisons. Specifically around whether or not we think it happens or what is our worry therein. Sorry to come back in terms of clarification. I think that we would be naive if we would say that sexual relationships do not happen in a prison setting, irrespective of gender allocation to be fair. Haram is a specific issue for us, so one of the considerations that we would undertake to assess when placing anyone in a prison would be that haram-related issue relative to sexual offending or sexual assault therein. I do not know if that answers the question. Yes, and the policy when it comes to consensual sexual relations within the Scottish Prison Service. We can take that away and provide a written response to the committee after today's session. Okay, my follow-up really was going to be on the back of that, how the bill, as it stands at the moment, would affect any current policy within the Scottish Prison Service on sex and sexual relations? Again, just to reaffirm what I said earlier on, we do not anticipate at this time the bill and its current form having any major impact in terms of our capacity to respond operationally to meet the needs of those in our care that are transgender. Okay, thank you. Moving on to some questions for Dr Gayan, Rachel Hamilton. It's your turn at last, Mr Gayan. You've waited patiently. Okay, in your opening statement, you said that data should reflect experience and it should reflect who we are, who we want to be. You said there's too much data, and correct me if you didn't say that. I was a bit shocked when you said that, so I just want clarity on that. My question to you is, is it your position that we should now only collect data based on gender ID and not data on sex? I can respond to both parts of your question. For the first part, my statement on rounding in data, I do feel that around reform of the bill there is a huge amount of data in support of reform, just to signpost some of the work in that space. There's been two massive consultations, as most people will be aware by the Scottish Government, with over 34,000 responses. Opinion polling has generally showed the public green favour or reform of the act, the most recent being a BBC Scotland poll from February this year, and also a huge amount of personal testimonies from organisations such as Scottish Trans. I know that the committee had a private session earlier to again hear the lived experience of that need for reform. There is, in my view, an ample amount of data in support of reform and an argument to kind of proceeding and getting on with action rather than amassing more and more evidence of that demand. In regard to the second part of your question, at present, data is collected about sex in most situations, not gender identity. The difference is in how sex is conceptualised in those data collection exercises. In my opening statement, I mentioned that across the public sector, private sector research exercises, the vast majority of questions are about self-identified sex, so allowing respondents to answer the question as they wish, whether they are male, female, man or woman. Questions are not about legal sex, they are not about biological sex, not about the sex on your birth certificate or your GRC. I do not see any change in the work that Scotland is doing around data collection at the moment. It is a maintenance of the status quo. There was a court ruling earlier in the year around the census in Scotland. The Scottish Government was successful in defending their position, which ultimately maintained the same sex question in the census, as was asked in 2011. I do not see a departure in how we are collecting data. It is more of a continuation of how it has been previously. Why is it that you have a different view to so many senior quantitative social scientists who feel that it is very important to collect clear data on sex? For example, we just spoke with a witness regarding the differences between England and Wales and Scotland. For example, within the Scottish census, which you mentioned, the meanings of sex are different. Therefore, if National Register of Scotland is working with other bodies across England and Wales, how does that square? Thank you for your question. The difference between the censuses across Scotland and England and Wales follows a departure from the status quo in the English and Welsh census, where the guidance for the sex question now advises respondents to answer according to the sex on their birth certificate or GRC. That is a departure from how the question was previously asked. When we look at how people answer a sex question, whether it is a census or any other data collection exercise, the vast majority of the population is estimated more than 99 per cent of the population. Whether the question is about sex or gender, whether it is about legal sex, biological sex or self-identified sex, 99 per cent of the population will answer the question in the same way. Looking at a census at a population-level study, those numbers that we are talking about between the differences and approaches are quite small numbers. With a census in particular, it relies on people reading the guidance as well. Some interesting research done by National Records of Scotland, the head of Scottish Census, showed that the vast majority of people do not read the guidance for the sex question. They just answer it. I currently do not have concerns about any huge divergence in the numbers of the counts between Scotland and the rest of the UK. What is important to reaffirm is that the approach in Scotland is a continuation of how things have been. If we look at longitudinal studies, data sets and large research studies in Scotland, such as the Scottish Household Survey, those are all self-identified questions that map up to the approach in the census. If anything, the situation that is departing from how things were is the English and Welsh Census, not the decision in Scotland. To answer your first question about academics and researchers who differ in opinion to my view on the collection of data, I have worked in the space for around five years on a range of topics, such as gender, sex and sexuality, both in the UK and across Europe. It has been very uncommon for me to encounter other social researchers who think that we should be asking questions about biology or birth certificates. The vast majority of social researchers operate research by asking a self-identified sex question. There are a huge amount of academics, researchers and quantitative data experts who have also written open letters, who have written to Parliament and reaffirming that asking a self-identified sex question poses no risk to the quality of data collected. I would be happy to share with the committee an open letter from April 2021 where over 300 academics, quantitative data experts and scientists reaffirm the benefits of a self-identified sex question. I mean, you've referenced the census quite a lot. Only 86 per cent of people filled in the census and there is concern that that data is going to be able to be used in a quantitative manner, I suppose. It's a very difficult example to use in the current circumstances. However, everything is based on data. For example, criminal justice data is based on sex, not self-identification. I think that some people would be concerned in public bodies that there will be an impact. I don't really agree with what you've said. You're also set out by saying that we use data. We use data here. We collected data and we used a consultation. 59 per cent of those who responded disagreed with the principles of gender reform. We use that, too. However, how will the gender pay gap be measured? There are so many questions to be answered. I'm not sure if I feel reassured by your argument that we just need to base everything on self-identification. I think that there is perhaps a misunderstanding about how those data practices currently take place. With Police Scotland, they have recently reaffirmed and with the courts they don't ask questions about birth certificates or biological sex in the reporting of crime, whether it's witnesses, victims or suspects. It is self-identified sex data that is collected in Scotland. Likewise, as you mentioned around the gender pay gap, again, it is self-identified sex data that is collected and reported for the gender pay gap reporting. It has been confirmed in recent guidance by the Scottish Government's Sex and Gender Data Working Group, which advises public bodies how to collect data about sex and gender. In that guidance, the chief statistician and the working group confirmed that a self-identified approach to sex would be sufficient for quality reporting for the public sector quality duty. A position that was informed by a submission by the Quality and Human Rights Commission, which confirmed their position that self-identified sex data was sufficient for public sector quality duty reporting and reporting of the gender pay gap. On the point of the gender pay gap, I would also like the committee, if you haven't already had the chance to do so, to look at a really fantastic detailed submission by ClosGap. In their submission, they test some hypotheses for what might happen if, in different hypothetical situations, in their models, some men were changed to women across a range of different organisations, and whether or not that would have an impact on the gender pay gap. ClosGap, in their submission, highlighted that those changes make no meaningful impact to the data and, particularly, do not make any meaningful impact on how the gender pay gap is addressed. The gender pay gap is quite a complex calculation. It can vary for a range of reasons. Staff turnover, for example, in higher levels, can quite quickly fluctuate the gap between male and female pay. With any of those exercises, it is vital that we scratch the surface and see what the data is really getting at, rather than assuming that sex is the only thing that we should be interested in as researchers and policy makers. Just before Richard MacKinnon comes back in, can we go to Paul Loh, who has got a comment on this area? I can't hear you, Paul. Thank you very much, convener. As the Registrar General, I am responsible for taking the census, so, as there has been some commentary on it, I thought that it would be appropriate to note a few points. I think that the first one is the legislative point. To be clear, in 2011, the whole UK used a self-identified sex question. That was the intention of the Office of National Statistics as it went into its 2021 census. It was subject to a court challenge and an interim decision in the High Court of England in Wales ruled against its approach. O&S took the decision not to contest that judgment and to amend its guidance. Importantly, as we talk about data, that came into effect after O&S had received millions of returns. That change in guidance happened after quite a large proportion of the population in England and Wales had already submitted their returns using the existing guidance. In Scotland, the case was subject to both a judicial review and an appeal. Our guidance in both of those cases was found to be compatible with the legislation. The judges, who were involved in those decisions, noted that there was a wide variety of use and interpretation of sex and gender across a range of different pieces of legislation. To be clear, there is a clear legislative position in Scotland around the issue as it relates to the census. We have acted compatibly with the legislation, and I cannot comment on the decision in a court in another part of the UK, based on the information that it had, but it was an interim proceeding. It was not a full judicial review outcome in that case. In terms of the comments that were made about the data, I am not going to pretend that I am happy that I have not got 90 per cent plus in the census, but there seems to be a great weight of interpretation because we have not achieved that. The census is in some way… I have heard various words, shambles and various other things that have been defined. That is not the case. With the organisation or the census taking experts, we have been doing it for over 200 years. We can produce a good quality census outcome with the 87 per cent plus return rate that we have received now. I appreciate that this has been a source of speculation, so I commissioned an international panel of experts chaired by Professor James Brown from Sydney, who is a professor in official statistics there, including a number of international experts, including the UK national statistician, Sir Ian Diamond. Last week, he issued a statement saying that the census achieved a solid foundation and it was appropriate to move on to the next stages. Modern censuses are not just about the collection of data, that is how it used to be done a long time ago. In the past 30 years, we have been using the census collection and something called the census coverage survey, which we are about to start running in Scotland, and a range of other statistical techniques to produce high-quality outcomes. We will use those advice by the international panel that I have convened to ensure that we provide high-quality census outputs. It would be helpful to clarify those points as they have come up in discussion. In 2004, the GRA felt that there had already been an impact on the collection and use of the data because public bodies are either refusing or not collecting data based on sex. I am wondering whether the bill in itself will exacerbate that problem, because do you agree that it could become a problem as we move forward? It is a difficult question, because if you bring down the age to 16 and people's views and experiences are based on certain points in their life—whether it is a job or a savings pension—there is a lot riding on that. I wonder whether you think that it is important that we, in light of our discussion here today, think that data should be collected on a sex basis as well as possibly your talking about a gender basis, so that we can create good policy. As a point of clarification, are you able to say more about the impact of the perceived negative impact of the GRA on public sector quality due to reporting? I have not come across any sources of evidence in that myself. I think that it is just referencing to the specific examples that I gave you, which could be that young people seeking help in gender identification clinics, gender pay gap or all the other issues that I have raised with you today with regard to how we go through our lives. In terms of that, is there a definition that forms public policy and creates services and provides help? Yes, I can respond to that. Again, to go back to my opening statement and just to make the point again that how we collect data about sex in Scotland does not require a person to have or have not a GRC across all, whether it is work in the public sector, whether it is collecting employee data for gender pay gap reporting, whether it is being a participant in a survey or a research exercise, none of those questions are asking what is on your birth certificate or your biological sex, or whether or not you have a GRC. In my view, reforming the bill does not make any impact to how we are collecting data in Scotland at present. Does that have an effect on the prison service, Mr Kerr, if people have not got a GRC? I know that we have discussed that earlier, but specifically to Kevin's point of view that we do not really need to be collecting data on sex. People are not required to divulge if they have one with us. There was a comment made last week about perhaps SPS being blind to GRCs. I can understand where that position has come from, but we are not blind to GRCs. We take them extremely seriously and we treat them with the respect that they deserve, but they are not the only factor that we take into account when we are looking at how we place and manage people. The reason why we cannot tell you how many people have a GRC is because people do not need to divulge that to as we could. We have to respect people's rights. We do not collect birth certificates or that type of thing, so it is not something new for us. I have not made any point that we should not be collecting data on sex. My point is that we are collecting data on sex across a wide range of areas. It is self-identified sex that we are collecting data on. I thank you for that clarification and Maggie Chapman, please. Thank you for your comments so far. In your opening statement, you talked about data not being neutral. You mentioned in response to one of Rachel's questions the drowning in evidence for reform of the gender recognition act. I wonder if you can comment on, in maybe a little bit more detail around specific public policy areas, Rachel has touched on a few. We heard a few weeks ago from the EHRC saying that we needed to pause, we needed to consider how the proposed reform of the GRA legislation would have an impact on the collection and use of that data. I wonder if you can state in a little bit more detail that you already have done, given the numbers that we are talking about and given what we use data for, the policy implications, what is the material policy reality of the bill as it currently stands in your view? I was surprised and interested by the submission from the EHRC, both in the letter to the cabinet secretary at the start of the year and also in the oral evidence to this committee earlier in the spring. I was interested to see the reference to data collection as being a point of concern with reform of the bill. I know in the oral evidence it was suggested that the differing judgments in the court cases around the Scottish census and the English and Welsh census might have trickle-down effects that might in some way inform or shape the bill's impact on data collection. In my view, as the judgment in Scotland does not change the current practices, nor does it change how people with or without a GRC would respond to a census or any other data collection exercise. I did not see the relevance of that concern for data collection in Scotland. In regard to your second point, which was around the—sorry, if you could just remind me again—the second part of your question. The material reality, the consequences for policy in terms? As researchers and policy makers, it is vital that we ask questions that returns data that helps us solve problems. There is no one-size-fits-all model to how we ask about gender, sexuality depends on the context, depends on the communities that we are working with. As a researcher, I always aim to design a question and design questions that are robust, that are inclusive, accessible and, most importantly, are going to engage the groups that we are trying to participate in our data collection exercise. There is no point undertaking a massive research project if your questions are going to dissuade people from taking part in that project. I think that with all of our work, it is vital that we think who we are engaging with and designing questions that are robust but inclusive. I think that that is the approach that researchers, policy makers, strive to follow across social research. That is why, as it currently stands, across all areas of data collection in Scotland, my self-identified approach—whether it be to sex, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation—has throughout history been proven to be an effective means of engaging communities in policy making. That point is about effective means of engaging people in policy making. Does that link to your point about, in essence, what data is for? We use data in order to inform and change society for the better rather than having any intrinsic value in and of itself. Is that more or less what you are saying? That is exactly my point. I think that with a range of different areas where we could do research, particularly social research, where there is education, housing and healthcare, across those areas in particular, I cannot understand the rationale for asking questions about an individual's biological sex or the sex on their birth certificate, but we are really trying to get at our experiences of inequality, discrimination and difference that are revealed through asking about an individual's lived experience and how they engage in the world. As I said, that is not unique to questions on sex. The approach that researchers will follow for all areas of identity. I thank you for that clarity on the value of self-declaration and data collection. Also, just before I ask one final question for today to yourself, I want to thank the other panel members, because I have found today really useful, particularly from the prison service, for setting out your considered, sensitive and normalised approach to this, which I think is refreshing. The question that I have is about how data and how you think data will be affected on the basis of—sorry—how data on the representation of women would be affected by the bill. Looking across the areas that I thought were of relevance to the committee and that might be perceived to be some conflict or some impact between reform of the bill and the collection of data, I have mentioned a few of the examples around gender pay gap reporting, reporting of organisations for the public sector, quality duty, research studies conducted by universities and research organisations alongside the census or any other future national data collection exercise.  I do not see for my work any impact across those areas on the bill, as it currently stands, having any impact on how data is collected about women. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. If you could now go to Karen Adam, please. Thank you, convener, and thank you Kevin for your evidence so far. I would just like to ask if you spoke about the amount of data that there was and that there was an incredible amount of it. In regard to specifically this bill, relative to other data gathering, how do you feel that the data is looking in a quantitative way, I should say? Thank you for your question. Relative to other data gathering? Yes, there has been a huge amount of interest, a huge amount of engagement, a huge amount of consultation into this bill, both conducted by the Scottish Government alongside, as I mentioned, opinion polling, a huge range of lived testimonies from people who may themselves be engaging with any future gender recognition process, both qualitative and quantitative data. Not to go through the details again in too much detail, but over 34,000 responses to the two consultations conducted by the Government alongside a range of exploratory work looking at international comparators as well. Going back to my point, the bill as stands is not an untested project. This has been taking place for 10 years in forums around the world, around a range of comparable countries, and looking at what the Government has published on any evidence of the bill being used or being used in the ways that it goes against its intended meaning, or having negative impacts on other communities. Again, there is very limited, if any, robust evidence to demonstrate the negative impact in comparator countries where this has taken place. In regard to the existence of data showing the benefits of it, but also the lack of data showing the negatives of it, there is a huge amount of evidence in support of reform. I thank all three of you and all four of you for that useful evidence session. We will now suspend for about five minutes to change witnesses. Welcome back. Now we welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses, representing faith and secular groups. We are pleased to welcome Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office of the Bishops Conference of Scotland, Reverend Karen Henry, vice-conviner of the Faith Impact Forum, minister of the Yorker Parish Church in the Church of Scotland and Chris Ringland, public policy officer of Scotland for the Evangelical Alliance and Fraser Sutherland, chief executive officer of the Humanist Society of Scotland. You are all very welcome. Now I invite you all to make some short opening statements starting with Anthony Horan, please. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak on this important matter today. The bill before the Parliament is part of a wider and tense public debate about sexuality and gender, which raises profound questions about human nature and the meaning of human sexuality. The Bishops Conference of Scotland supports calls for all parties engaged in this debate to do so in a respectful manner. The Catholic Church's understanding of the human person and human sexuality is that sex is genetically, anatomically and physiologically fixed from conception. This understanding is widely held by people of all faiths and none. Yet, although this is the case since 2004, an individual has been able to legally change gender by following the process the Scottish Government now seeks to change. Therefore, even as we express our rejection of the idea that one can change sex, we accept that the legal ability to change gender and, consequently, sex on official documents is the legal framework within which we consider the bill before us. The Bishops Conference of Scotland has serious concerns about the bill, not least the removal of the requirement of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the proposed reduction of timescales and reducing the minimum age for applications to 16 years. Gender dysphoria has been associated with low self-esteem, depression and the taking of unnecessary risks. Studies have found that suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are significantly higher for those with gender dysphoria compared to the general population. To demedicalise the process as proposed in the bill would deprive a vulnerable group disproportionately affected by suicidality and comorbid conditions of much needed contact with health professionals. Furthermore, the proposal to reduce the minimum age to 16 years risks bringing children into a process that they may not be equipped to deal with and which is lacking appropriate medical oversight. We also share concerns about the impact of reform on single sex spaces and the risk to the safety and wellbeing of people, especially women and girls. I appeal to the committee, which has an unenviable task of trolling through pages and pages of evidence and of ensuring a respectful yet honest debate on a highly contested issue to keep an open mind. The bill is not without risk and the public are concerned about that risk. The significant number of responses to the committee consultation opposing the bill either in whole or in part is testament to that. Every individual experiencing gender dysphoria should be treated with justice, respect and charity. We must also be mindful of the vulnerability, highlighted by the high rates of comorbidities that have already been mentioned, and that cannot be ignored. One of my Church of Scotland roles is to convene integrity, our national violence against women task group. That group exists to raise awareness and to help prevent the issue of violence against women. We approach all gender-based violence with a survivor-centred, faith-based and gendered lens. The rights and safety of women and girls as survivors of abuse, along with the safeguarding of single sex spaces have been used to justify arguments against reform. I want to be clear that integrity is satisfied and convinced by the evidence offered by engender, rape crisis and Scottish women's aid that the advancement of trans rights does not endanger women and girls or encroach on their rights. We are concerned that the voices of survivors are being used in this way, which risks confusing vulnerable women and demonising another vulnerable group. Instead, we think that more needs to be done for all victims of gender-based violence. The committee will appreciate that the Church of Scotland is a large organisation that has a broad diversity of views, and where there is rarely unanimity, I am confident, however, that the opinions represented in our written evidence and what I am here to say to you today reflect the broad majority of views within the Church of Scotland. My final opening comment is to commend two committee members to read our publication, Diverse Gender Identity and Pastoral Care, available from our website. It helps to sum up our approach to this issue through the lens of supporting people who struggle against prejudice and discrimination. The Evangelical Alliance is the largest and oldest body representing the United Kingdom's 2 million evangelical Christians. We were found at 175 years ago, and in Scotland we have relationships with Christian organisations and charities and approximately 500 churches with around 50,000 church attenders. Our members run youth clubs, food banks and debt counselling services working right across Scotland in some of the most deprived and affluent areas. They work with children, families, those with disabilities and those living alone, and minister to and serve those who experience gender dysphoria and those from the trans community on a daily basis. We commend the Scottish Government in its aims through this legislation to improve the lives of transgender people across Scotland. The trans community is one of the most marginalised groups in Scotland today and has been historically, and we recognise the role that churches have sometimes played in contributing to this. As Christians, we believe that everyone is made in the image of God and is therefore inherently worthy of love, value, dignity and respect. It is widely acknowledged that the current equality and human rights framework that we operate under in the western world draws from its historically Christian origins. We do, however, have significant concerns about the bill that is currently drafted. Rather than improving the lives of those in the trans community, we are concerned about how the changing of the GRC application process could have unintended consequences to the country, as well as how the proposed process could affect the protected characteristic of sex under the Equality Act, children's development and pastoral care. In short, we think that the current system is fair, balanced and adequate in how one obtains a GRC, and we know that this view is shared by the majority of the 10,800 respondents to the committee's call for view short survey response, with almost 60 per cent of respondents disagreeing with the overall purpose of the bill, with similar majorities expressing concern for the bill's different elements. We're looking forward to answering your questions on the key aspects of the bill, but we also want to emphasise what the committee has strove to do throughout this legislative process, which we commend it for. The debate around these issues is far too toxic and harmful towards those that it impacts upon, so it is our aim to be constructive, loving and respectful in every way, just like Jesus. Thank you, Chris. Now, if we can hear from Fraser Sutherland, please. Thank you for inviting us. As humanists, we're committed to treating individuals as having inherent worth in dignity and having the right to self-determination of their own lives and bodies. I move to recognising a self-declaration process for gender recognition is in line with humanist principles regarding the autonomy of individuals over their self, and we believe that the proposals in the bill will make the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate better for those who choose to apply for one. We'll now move on to questions starting with Maggie Chapman, please. Thanks very much, Joe. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us this morning, and thank you for your opening statements and the materials that you've provided in advance in writing. I've got a couple of questions around the need for diagnosis around gender dysphoria and the medical panel that is currently in place with the current legislation. Anthony, I wonder if I could come to you first. You talked about there being a higher level of suicidal ideation and the negative mental health impacts that many members of the trans community experience disproportionately compared to the broader population. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said something along the lines of you wouldn't want to see a lessening of engagement with or connection to the medical profession, psychiatric profession and so would like to see the retention of that panel. Did I understand you correctly there? Even though we've heard from people who've been through that process that they never actually speak to the panel, there isn't that sort of patient-doctor relationship that you would expect or that supportive relationship. It's just a body of evidence that is sent to and then assessed by, quite frankly, for the trans person, an anonymous panel. I think that that is something that needs to be improved because we can't hide away from the fact that the statistics, from your tone, you accept the statistics for trans people in terms of comorbidities and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts and so on. Given that that is the reality of it, more needs to be done to ensure that there is medical contact and appropriate medical contact. It's certainly not the time to be removing any of that. I do accept that members of the trans community have high levels of suicidal ideation. I would not attribute that to the lack of contact with a medical panel as in the current process. I would attribute that to a transphobia within society more broadly. However, if I can come back on that if that diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required, how would you see the GRC process applying to trans people who do not experience gender dysphoria? I think that the key point is that I don't think that you remove that process just because there are people who won't necessarily need to avail themselves of that and require that medical interaction. However, the very fact that there will be people who require it, given those comorbidities, especially—this is the case for young people, I would say— who are quite vulnerable in this regard, I think that that should be retained. As I say, I don't think that it's the time—I don't know if it will ever be the time, but it's certainly not the time now—to remove it, given those statistics. I think that it could be potentially dangerous to do that. I accept what you are saying, that there will be people who don't necessarily have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but the point is that you capture the people who do have gender dysphoria and they are given the appropriate support and treatment, if indeed that is required, but that will be down to medical professionals. The diagnosis itself is a current requirement, so it doesn't capture those who don't experience gender dysphoria. The current system doesn't serve a proportion of the trans community who do not have that diagnosis, so we are not supporting them at all with the current process, which I view as problematic. Given the lack of engagement of the panel with the individual, there isn't that medical support there. I agree with you that there needs to be support provided, but I'm not sure that the process is the appropriate way. Karen, can I come to you on this? Is it your clear position that that diagnosis of gender dysphoria is problematic and that it's removal—you stated that you welcome that removal? What would you see as being legitimate or necessary evidence or criterion for the new process? We would consider that, in line with the World Health Organization, who have said that transgender and diverse gender identity is not a mental or behavioural disorder, the natural outworking of that statement is that the diagnosis needs to be removed. We feel that this is not a medical issue. The people who are transgender, who are experiencing their lives through different diverse gender ways need to be listened to. They have the knowledge and expertise within their own skin and their experience. They are living out in the world. We need to be a listening ear. There needs to be a pastoral response, a caring response and a valuing response of the individual. That would be our main concern. Thank you for that, Karen. Chris, if I can ask you, you mentioned in your opening statement the concerns around the impacts on other protected characteristics of the bill, as it currently stands. Can you just say a little bit more about that? We will come to that through other questions around different aspects of the bill, to touch on the medicalisation aspect. We recognise that every trans person's experience is different. That has come through your question as well. However, our concern around the way that the bill is proposed is the potential unintended consequences on the trans community itself. If that is one of the main ways in which it is assessed as to how someone obtains a GRC, that potentially opens it up to people misusing the system, not those who you described as those who do not experience, just as in bad faith actors or the type that we have described before on the committee. I would defer to the NHS in terms of what, if it is seen as inappropriate, what would be appropriate? I would note how and ask how that fits in with the interim report of the CAS review as well, and also just to say it from a European comparison perspective. In the Netherlands, their gender recognition system requires supporting expert opinion, and the vast majority of EU member states such as Croatia, Finland, Germany and Sweden all require supporting medical documentation, so we would not be necessarily out of step by keeping some aspect of medical documentation as part of the process. Around the medicalisation of the process, you stated in your opening remarks that autonomy is really important. How do you see the medicalisation interacting with that notion of autonomy, if at all? On the bill, it is about a legal process rather than a medical process, and I think that it is important that we keep that in context. There are potentially two approaches here. There is regulated medical support for people who need it, but there is also the legal process, which I see is quite something different. I do not think that the need for the diagnosis essentially would be my answer for the legal process. I do not think that it is helpful, but I think that it brings us in line with other European countries who have moved to a self-declaration process like Ireland, Denmark and Malta. Part of the humanist movement that we champion is people's personal autonomy over themselves, and I think that them being able to make that decision for themselves is quite important. I would like to ask on the opinions of the panel. When you came to the conclusions of those opinions, was that after you had engagement with any trans-members of your religion or organisations or any trans-community organisations? Most of the evidence that we have is drawn from a number of studies over a number of years, which has involved trans-gender persons, but we have not spoken specifically to trans people in our community. I refer back to our diverse gender identities and pastoral care booklet that is on our website. It is collating people's life stories in their own words. It is a resource that we have made available for our congregations to discuss that. Our membership interacts with the trans community in all their services, and we are attempting to represent them today. Specifically on that particular issue, we sought out external support, as well as the internal membership, including trans members of the humanist community. We spoke to academic specialists and family law, transgender support organisations, children's rights specialists and published evidence from the World Health Organization before developing our position on the Government's review, which we did back in 2017, when the list was all started. Ryan, thank you very much. Can we now go to Fulton MacGregor, please? Thanks, convener, and good morning to the panel. I've got two questions around two provisions in the bill, and that's the provision to live in the acquired gender for three months, and then, secondly, on the proposed three-month reflection period. If I could ask about the provision to live in the acquired gender for three months, we've heard quite a lot of evidence suggesting that this is unnecessary, both from those who are generally for or support the bill and from those who have concerns about the bill. I'm happy to take any order, but I'll just go with how we've been going so far. I'm just wondering what your thoughts on the specific provision are. We don't have a medical scientific view on this, because we're not that kind of organisation, but my concern follows on from the answer that I gave to Maggie Chapman earlier in terms of the evidence of elevated risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and so on. Any reduction in the time frame risks a failure to provide the space and support for people who are impacted by gender dysphoria, and on the face of it, three months seem remarkably short for a decision of such magnitude. I probably, thanks very much for that answer before I move on to the other panel, so I should maybe expand a wee bit. I hope I'm not misquoting either side of the debate. I don't think that I'm generally speaking. I think that those who are in favour of the bill generally and the provisions worry that this is unnecessary, because people have been living like this for a long time. Three months, three months or two years, this is a big life change in decision. Those with some concerns about the bill are concerned about the term acquired gender more and how that could be defined. Maybe I should have given that a wee bit more explanation before I come on there, but I do appreciate your answer, Anthony. I would pick up on your last point there. The Church of Scotland does not have one view about whether there should be a three-month living in your acquired gender, as it has been termed in the bill. However, they want to create the language of acquired. There's a thought that you don't acquire a gender, it's inherent within you, and there's a process of revelation of being comfortable in your own skin. We would like to ask whether the committee could perhaps revisit that term acquired and reflect on a transgender's personal reality a bit more. Are you only concerned for the reflection period? I'll come back to that as I say, but that's okay. That's great. Thank you very much for that. In a Crescent Fraser review, have you got anything to add? Yes, just briefly. We think that the current requirements for living for two years is sufficient, but we also do acknowledge what has been said previously by witnesses. One of the previous witnesses said that they waited four years for an appointment at a general identity clinic, so we do recognise that, but we think that that's all the more reason to keep it at that. Even though we also think that it seems that in three months or two years, it's arbitrary in one sense, but the reduction to three months with the removal of providing other forms of evidence leaves it open to unintended consequences that would negatively affect the trans community. We also just want to pin the record as well. In light of the cast review that we might come back to in the air questions, that's a reason why it should be kept to two years as well, if we're going to reduce it to 16-year-olds as well. Just picking up on the point that Karen made around the need for the acquired gender, I suppose there's a slight problematic point on that that suggests that there's some kind of gender norm or gender roles, and it plays into the idea that people have to fit in a specific kind of what evidence is that going to look like, that you're going to be able to show that you're fit in with this category. I wonder if that's slightly problematic for some trans people who are who might not fit that classical view of what that looks like. On the waiting period, I'm not sure that when we've read the documentation from the Government that there's strong evidence as to why there's a need for a waiting period. I asked the cabinet secretary when we had a faith and belief round table with the cabinet secretary as to what the purpose of the waiting period is, and there's still not really any evidence being given as to why they feel that it's necessary. I don't feel that it's been robustly explained as to what the purpose of that is other than people might change their mind, but people might change their mind in other legal contracts that we don't insist on a statutory waiting period. If there's evidence as to why that's a good idea, I'd like to hear it, but I don't think that we've heard it from the Government yet. I'll do it in reverse this time if that's all right to be fair. The three-month reflection period that you were going on to touch upon there, again we've heard some concerns about that, we've heard some concerns that it's perhaps quite demeaning for trans people to have a reflection period, but then on the other side of that we've heard that perhaps a reflection period isn't long enough, particularly as I think you were talking about there, or one of the panels talked about when it might come to younger people who are going through a lot of different changes in their lives. I wonder if you can give us your views on the three-month reflection period as proposed and, as I say, I'll start with your self-raiser this time. The fact that the process has this requirement for a statutory declaration, I feel like that's quite a strong ramification that's coming from that decision that people are making. I struggle to understand that it's something that people are rushing into all of a sudden and they're making the decision. The fact that they've probably come to this decision over a protracted period of time before they've even entered into this process to then set another, you know, put this application in and then you have to wait another three months and then kind of almost complete it, suggest that people haven't put a serious thought into it. Like I say, there's other, you know, there's other big legal changes that people can make in their lives that don't require that kind of enforced waiting period, so I'm not sure that we've heard the evidence strongly as to why that's required. Okay, thank you. Chris, you're good. Yeah, I think that diversity of views is reflected in the responses to the committee's call for views. I think that it was 40%, 40% agreed with the reflection period, nearly 35% disagreed and 25% didn't know if they agreed or not, so I think that that is, yeah, that was quite different, I think, to the other questions that were asked about the bill. Just to put it on the record as well, we note that Denmark's legislation has a six-month reflection period before legal recognition is granted and Belgium also requires a period of reflection, so just a bit of that. Okay, thanks for that, Ian. Gailin? The Church of Scotland feels that this is generally a good idea, that it emphasises the seriousness and legal formality of the process. It's a self-declaration that someone is making and it gives time to reflect on the permanent nature of being granted a gender recognition certificate. We're not sure why three months. We would encourage the committee to perhaps tease that out some more and give some background as to why three months is the figure that has been chosen. We would also be concerned that, during those three months, it's not simply a down time waiting for a letter in the post, that there's some, there's how are people enabled to reflect during this time? What support are they given so that this time is a positive time of waiting and enabling a person to be who they feel themselves to be? Thanks for that. Just a supplementary on yourself before I move over to Anthony, you've always asked us to tease out where the figure has come from and I think that's a very reasonable ask. Do you or the church have your own view on that? Do you think that the three months are just a bit right or too short? The only concern that we would have is for those who were younger. We feel that it would be right for 18-year-olds, but if it was someone coming in in 2016, we would consider that our reflection period should take them up to 18 years. We're saying that because 18 is noted as the year that UN Convention of Rights of the Child defines that a person becomes an adult when they reach 18. We're also noting that England has raised the minimum age for marriage to 18, and you'll know better than me, but Scotland may follow that and there are other indications of the difference between 16 and 18. Armed forces is 18, and there are reasons why 16 is not treated as an adult in the justice system, in the criminal justice system, so those are things that would impact our thoughts on this. Studies suggest that the majority of young people with gender dysphoria will desist and become settled in their biological sex, as much as 85 per cent in a study from 2016. In that sense, our reflection period would appear logical, but the fact that it's time limited raises questions about other provisions in the bill, and I suspect that we might come on to that later. Good afternoon to the panel. Thank you for your answer on the question so far and for the information that you've submitted in advance. It's been really helpful. I have a couple of follow-on points from what we've heard. Specifically on the time period, and some have said that it's remarkably short for a decision of such magnitude, I think, was specifically how it was put. We've heard a lot from LGBT people that it's usually the end of the process for them, applying for a gender recognition certificate, rather than the beginning of a process. They have been thinking about this thing for a significant period of time, so much so that the example that you gave Chris, if it's okay, of Denmark—I think that Denmark is one of the countries that are considering no longer having that period in it—and I'll be corrected on the record if I'm wrong on that, but I think that it was one of those countries. What is your response? What is the panel's response to LGBT people who say that this is the end of the process? We've already spent a lot of time thinking about whether or not we want to change our gender. Absolutely, and we completely acknowledge that. Our concern generally, which is a recurrent theme throughout different aspects of the bill, is that the way that it is currently drafted potentially leaves the door open to people misusing it who aren't from the trans community, because there's no requirement. It's the false application offence that is the main barrier to stopping that. It doesn't necessarily need to be two years, it could be shorter than that, but it's just having it as three months with nothing else, with the other different aspects of the bill that we'll touch on, is what our concern is around for the trans community and other people being misusing it. I just ask a quick supplementary on that, if that's okay, Chris. Thank you for that, that's helpful. What is the evidence that you have of people using it for bad acting purposes? We don't necessarily have evidence for how this would work in practice in this regard, but it's just in making legislation, even if we expect that to be a small number of people who would potentially do that, or if that is the case. Even the fact that it could be a possibility is something that the bill should seek to stop. We assume that the committee would agree with that as well, from people misusing it in that sense, because of the way that it's just the false application that will come into it during other questions as well. Do other panel members have any comment on the time period further to what you've answered? Yeah, I mean, I can understand what Chris is saying about the potential for bad actors and trying to put people off, I suppose, with a longer time period. I take the point that Pam Duncan Glancy put forward in terms of some people seeing that as the end of the process, and given the length of time, but maybe that's something that the Government needs to consider, just some of the other areas that maybe isn't covered in the proposed legislation where the process could be improved. Again, I'll go back to my point that I made earlier. For risk of sounding like a broken record, it's just the evidence that we've seen in terms of the comorbidities for that community, particularly for people with gender dysphoria, is very concerning and is something that we need to be wary of. The causative effects of that are largely unknown, in fact. In that sense, much more research needs to be done in order to find out exactly what it is that's causing the comorbidities in this community. I share your concerns about the suicide rates. In general, the poor health outcomes for trans people across Scotland and the UK in general are a concern for all of us. I don't know that the bill is specifically the place to address that. Could you see any other routes that we could use to address it so that perhaps we could work with the people who the current process doesn't capture the people who are not gender dysphoric? Is there any other way that you think we could make both work together? I'm not sure. It's not something that I've thought an awful lot about, but I suspect that there are elements of the process that sit out with the bill and out with legislation generally that could be improved. Chris Ringland spoke a moment ago about an individual who'd experienced a four-year wait. I guess that that's something that could be improved by looking at the process rather than needing any kind of legislative change. I turn to Reverend Cameron Henry and your opening comments.  We've heard some discussion today but also in previous sessions about worries about bad actors and you were quite strong on your view on that. Could you tell us a little bit about how you've come to that view and what your view on bad faith actors in this legislation is? A crime is a crime. The bill is anything man-made. I don't think that he's going to totally be waterproof against a crime being made. That is a different issue. I don't think that the bill is the core purpose of the bill. I think that integrity is focused on violence against women. The Church of Scotland has particular concerns, the faith impact forum, which I represent also has concerns of speaking for the marginalised and the victimised as well. There is clear evidence that transgender people experience more violence. We have figures from various research that suggest that transwomen are twice as likely to experience sexual assault than ciswomen, and 47 per cent of trans people have experienced sexual assault. We're also concerned about discrimination and how, as a society, we can learn to live better with difference. Does anyone else have any further points? I have one other question. The last question is about some of the comments that we've had in submissions, including from yourself, Anthony, about parts of the bill affecting reassignment surgery or irreversible interventions. Could you tell us a bit more about what you mean by that and how you came to those conclusions? On the point of reducing the age from 18 to 16, is that it's irreversible, and it conflates the point about reassignment surgery as well? In terms of children, there are good reasons to protect children from making permanent legal declarations regarding their gender, and there are good reasons to question opening up a pathway to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and other potentially irreversible treatments and surgery. The long-term effects of a lot of that remains unclear, and that's really our concern. I don't think that the science has necessarily settled on that, and therefore I think that that's something that we're really concerned about. I mean, there is evidence that, just quoting one study, that much is still to be ascertained about the impact of medical intervention, and I suppose that applies actually to adults as much as it does to children, so that's a really, really important thing that we need to think about. Particularly in relation to children, I think we've also said in our evidence that you're not allowed to get a tattoo at 16 and 17 years of age, and that's something that's only skin-deep, but attempting to change one sex was much, much deeper, and therefore I think that it would be incongruent to have that inability to get a tattoo, but at the same time you can change your gender. Are there aspects of the bill that you think make this process irreversible? I think that making it, I suppose, simplifying the process and particularly removing the requirement of a diagnosis for gender dysphoria, I think potentially does set individuals on a particular path down which there is an increased likelihood that they will, for example in terms of children or younger people, maybe entertain puberty blockers before that point, and then they entertain across sex hormones, and then they go on to surgical intervention, which is generally irreversible as far as I'm aware. Therefore, there is evidence that once an individual has engaged in that process, started puberty blockers basically, then the vast majority will continue on through that process, going on to cross sex hormones, and then going on potentially to surgery, and so there is a danger there that somewhere of that at least could be irreversible. I don't have any evidence to suggest that that wouldn't be irreversible, so I couldn't dispute that, but I wonder what part of this particular legislation puts someone in the process of accessing puberty blockers? I think there isn't anything specific on that. It is not direct provision within the legislation, however, as I say, that the removal of the requirement of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria I think potentially just makes it easier and therefore opens up that pathway where people could go down that route in that process that I referenced. I think it increases the chances of young people who would normally, and we've seen evidence of that, normally desist from their gender dysphoria and become settled in their biological sex. It increases the chances that they will go on and potentially engage in irreversible elective treatments or surgery. Do you think that that could be a reason to decouple the medical process with the legal process so that people aren't immediately put down a medical path, which could result in what you've described? I do think that I still maintain my argument that the medical process and the medical oversight should be retained for the reasons that I outlined earlier. I would like to comment that perhaps the committee could emphasise something that our faith impact forum and the Church of Scotland came up with, that this is not a self-id route to medical treatment or surgery and that perhaps that needs to be emphasised. Anyone else? Just to very briefly put on the record around the area of de-translucing, just to refer the committee to reports and statements from Europe recently from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the National Academy of Medicine in France, which I think followed that. Just about this whole area, I would implore the committee to explore that. Also just around the area of the false declaration, if the bill as currently stands is to reduce it to 16 and then someone de-translucing later on in life, we don't think that that should be criminalised, but that's not part of the provisions in the false applications. We'll come to that later, I'm sure, but just then. I don't have any major to add on that really, I think, at the beginning part I said about. It was a good idea to decouple the medical and the legal process. Thank you. We can now hear from Rachel Hamilton, please. The first question is, can you explain your views on the provision in the bill to lower the age for a GRC from 18 to 16? I'm going to start off with Reverend Henry, because obviously we've heard that the Church of Scotland agree with discontinuing mandatory assessments, but they don't agree with lowering the age from 18 to 16. I wonder if I could get your views, please. It's really to reflect the wider context that 18 is regarded by the UN Convention of Rights of the Child, which defines the child as a human being under the age of 18. There are other markers for when a person reaches 18. There is a transition from childhood to adulthood. We note that the minimum age for marriage in England has risen now to 18 and an expectation that Scotland may follow. There's also a minimum age for armed forces that we would support as 18. A criminal justice system, a 16-year-old is not treated as an adult within that. We are of the opinion that a self-declaration requires a degree of maturity that perhaps is seen more in an 18-year-old than a 16-year-old. We're not saying that you would not engage with a 16-year-old. Our approach is absolutely pastoral. We would consider that a 16-year-old would have an extra period of reflection until they reached 18. If, for example, the Government reform went through and all the suggestions, all the policy reforms were passed in the Parliament, would you feel uncomfortable on your position of removing a need for an assessment and then not supporting the lowering of age to 16? I accept the arguments that you have made, by the way. How would you feel about that? How would the Church feel about that? Of removing the medical diagnosis? We would be happy with the removal of the medical diagnosis. We would be concerned about it being lowered to 16. I'll come to the other panel members in a minute. Who does the Church of Scotland engage with to come up with the policy positions that you are coming up with today? The Church of Scotland has two main forums, the Faith Nurture Forum, which looks in the way concerned with the internal dynamics of the Church of Scotland and the Faith Impact Forum, which is about looking out the way into the world. I am the vice convener of that. The forums are made of people that have identified skillsets that are required to engage and explore relevant news situations subjects that the Church is engaging in. I have looked at your Faith Forum.  Who else has the Church engaged with to form opinion? On our integrity group, which I convene, we have a professional violence against women worker. We have engaged in a stakeholder day where we have gathered information from interested parties as well. We have done a fair bit of conversation, information gathering. Our main focus is to listen, to understand and to respond in a pastoral way. Can I extend the question to other panel members? I was listening closely to what Karen was saying on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child. I do not feel like I agree with her assessment of how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child works and capacity judgments of how young people or how it is judged that young people reach a capacity age. I draw very much the attention to the evidence that you heard from Bruce Adamson on that topic. I think that he covered it very well in terms of how a capacity is judged for young people. If you look at, for example, the legal capacity Scotland act, young people are able to make even life and death decisions about medical treatment at the end of life, which shows that the system can be adopted, which protects the best interests of them as well as their voices equally. I am not sure that I would agree the assessment that UNCRC dictates that everything has to be 18. That is not my understanding at all from what legislation has been produced by this Parliament or by using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child. I also think that you heard earlier from evidence from Barry Crawford in one of the previous evidence sessions. I should give you a very clear number of examples of the experience of young trans people that I think would be very well listened to, not just by the committee but by the wider Parliament as well. It is strange how law works, is not it, that, like unregulation, you cannot get a credit card until you are 18, you cannot place a bet, you cannot get a tattoo, you cannot drink alcohol. There are strange rules and regulations for 16 to 18-year-olds. Chris, could I bring you in please? The cast review concludes that it should not be reduced to 16 and then see what comes of that because the interim report said that young people's gender identity cannot remain in flux until their mid-twenties. I will defer completely to medical professionals on those points, but it seems reasonable that it should be pressed ahead with reducing to 16, with that being known. With those different aspects that you just mentioned, Rachel was not clear as to why it would specifically be 16, considering those other aspects of law that you cannot do until you are 18 in Scotland. The legislation in Ireland has also been referred to in the committee previously. For the gender recognition process for 16 and 17-year-olds, it requires an application to a Government minister, a court order process, parental consent and medical certification from two doctors—a medical practitioner, a psychiatrist or endocrinologist—that you have transitioned or are currently transitioning into your preferred gender. I think that it is worth maybe the committee reflecting on that or hearing from an Irish representative on the specific point of 16 and 17-year-olds. For the record, that is under section 9 of Ireland's 2015 act. Belgium requires parental consent and a report from a psychiatrist for 16 and 17-year-olds, and it is just echo as well about the recent decision from the UK Government to legislate about marriage. They have raised the minimum age of marriage to 18 rather than 16 to tackle forced marriages, so that has the inherent implication that 16 and 17-year-olds are more vulnerable in different ways, so to speak, to 18-year-olds. I followed a little earlier in one of my answers to Pam Duncan Glancy, so I have maybe covered part of the ground already on that, but just to add to what I said earlier, the magnitude and consequences of such a decision raises the question whether a child—and I align myself with what Karen Henry said about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—defining children as those under 18. Whether a child can give informed consent, especially in the formative phase of their social development, as you mentioned a moment ago in Scotland, young people under age of 18 years are restricted by law in terms of buying alcohol, tobacco and licensed premises, buying or possessing fireworks, watching any film they like, or, as I said earlier, getting a tattoo. I repeat that a tattoo is skin-deep, but an attempt to change one's gender goes a lot deeper than that. Chris, you mentioned the cast review. We know that that is at its interim report stage at the moment. In England, they have seen a significant increase in referrals for children and young people to gender recognition clinics. You seem to have a strong view on the importance of the cast review. Do you think that this bill in Scotland should be paused until the cast review publishes in full? I think that that would be reasonable, but I am conscious that the points we have made many times about how long the process has been going on for, and they might have consultations. However, I think that the findings, even from the interim report, are very important in thinking around the bill. Is there any other panel that has a view on the cast review, and how important it is, particularly in the context of what we are doing in Scotland? Thank you for your opening statements. As you will probably be aware, if someone wishes to choose the sex of their nurse or doctor, they are free to ask. For example, if a female goes into doctor surgery and is getting a smear test done, she can ask if it can be completed by a female doctor. If a doctor or nurse is transgender and a patient is not aware of this, and as we have heard from many witnesses before, there are no requirements to disclose this information to the patient, that could interfere with religious practices whereby women are not allowed to be touched by men. That is of great importance to many, especially from the BAME community. I raised that concern last week, and I really have to put it on the record and make it very clear for everybody listening. At no time am I saying that the trans rights do not matter, nor am I saying that religious rights do not matter. That is about creating a practical balance between two sensitive areas, rights and liberties. Those are concerns that have been highlighted to me by many. I understand that this may not be the practice that is in every single religion, and maybe not in the religions that you represent. However, it would be great to hear from you or from religious organisations that you present if that is a concern for you or for women of faith, and whether there are other concerns regarding the practical implications of self-id, and that the committee might not have heard before. We do not discuss this as a forum, but religious belief is part of a protected characteristic in the Equalities Act 2020. For the BAME community that you are speaking about, I would expect their religious belief to be respected when they are interacting with medical profession or any other. I would expect their belief systems to be respected. The bill proposes to open up the possibility of legally changing gender to a larger number of people. With that comes a potential increase in the likelihood of bad actors abusing the system for their own ends, gaining access to, for example, women's refugees, safe houses, changing facilities and prisons. There are already examples of that, particularly in the prison system. That is not to tar all people in the community with that brush, but it is just that there may be people who want to use the system for their own nefarious ends, and that is very concerning. I think that it is incumbent upon the Scottish Government and the Parliament to ensure that those who express the view that sex and gender are immutable and reject the idea that gender is fluid and separable from biological sex are free to do so. That needs to be protected. That is particularly important for those who work in education, healthcare, marriage, celebrants, prison staff and religious representatives among others. Certainly from a Catholic Church position, I would argue that we should be able to declare the marriages of people in accordance with our own teaching, which is something that is already protected and should be preserved. The case is also for the teachings of other religious bodies and organising groups. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, free speech, freedom of expression and association—all of those fundamental freedoms constitute a precious inheritance that must be preserved and passed on intact to future generations. It is important again to put on the record that religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the equality act alongside sex and gender reassignment. That is the sort of thing that the equality and human rights commission was referring to about its concerns about a conflict possibly of rights in certain aspects and situations that you have referred to, Pam. That is worth exploring a lot more and I would defer to them about that. My perspective is that the situation that you were describing does not arrive from this particular bill and it already exists. That situation could already exist today. The NHS often provides sensitive services to people of religious communities. I think that they are capable to do so with that specific issue, and they obviously do at the moment. NHS has a long history of being very aware of and sensitive to individual religious beliefs if you look at their guidance on treatment, for example, of blood transfusions and people who refuse to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. I have no reason to believe that NHS would have a huge difficulty in doing the same for this particular issue. From our perspective, any healthcare should be provided on an informed consent basis for the patient. That is the right way to get about it. I will pick up on one point that Antony said about not portraying it as a group of people that are at a particular risk. It is important to say about how we strength and protect against individuals who are at a risk but without implying that a whole category of people should have their rights restricted in order to achieve that. I do not think that history is very kind on that perspective when we have restricted whole communities, whether that be religious groups or racial groups, on the basis of bad actors from that group. You are absolutely right that it is already the case that transgender doctors do not have to inform the patient of their transgender status. As it is already a gap in the law, wouldn't it make sense to address this issue now and bring balance between transgender rights and religious liberties? The bill is an opportunity, perhaps the prime opportunity, to bridge that gap. That proposed changes under the GRA would make it easier to transition and obtain a GRC. That may create a situation whereby the problem becomes more widespread, having a greater impact on the faith communities and their right to practice their religions. Like I said before, it should be on the basis of informed consent. It is for the NHS to put in the guidance and the regulations to achieve that. Can I ask the same question back to Anthony and Karen as well about the gap that is in the law right now and moving forward with the new legislation? I think that just that the Parliament, as I said, needs to be cognisant of that balance between potentially competing rights as might be the right way to say it, but certainly where there might be tensions exist. I would repeat what I said earlier on and just say that they just make sure that the Parliament is cognisant of that. Thank you, Karen. Is there anything that you want to say about the gap in the current law? I would reiterate that it is the go-back-to-their-quality act and the protected characteristics. I think that we were of the view that the Equalities Act protects situations like that. Religion belief is part of that and already protected. Thank you, Chris. I think that I would ask this question to all the panel if that is okay, if I can start with Anthony and then move right along the panel. We have heard that as trans people continue to have almost no visibility in public life and whether that is in boardrooms, council chambers, churches or parliaments, it is hoped that any trans person who has felt unsure about applying for a position on a Scottish public board will be encouraged to do so with those reforms. What is your response to this? Would those reforms change how you would proceed with the requests for trans people to be in leadership or decision-making roles within your organisation? That is not something that we have specifically considered, but getting back to basics, every human being in our understanding is made in the image and likeness of God. All human beings have to be respected, they all have dignity and we have to meet people where they are. Although our concerns about an opposition to reforms in this bill are well known, we recognise that there is absolutely a pastoral duty on the Catholic Church, and on all religious organisations in particular, to ensure that all individuals, whatever their sexuality, whatever their status, are welcomed into our communities. On that, there are protections in place under the GRAs as it currently stands, in terms of the appointment of priests, for example. I mentioned earlier on about the Catholic Church and our particular vision of the marriage between one man and one woman, and that is something that should be protected. I turn the committee's attention to our equality diversity and inclusion programme. That is looking at what it means to state that all people are loved by God—this is our faith perspective—and all people are welcome. What does that mean for us as a people of faith? In our website, Diverse Gender Identities and Pastoral Care, we have real stories of a trans male who is giving his life story. He is a leader in a Christian Church. In the Church of South India, they have ordained their first trans woman. They have been running a transgender programme in the diocese of Madras for some time now. The story of what it means to be human, what it means to feel loved, to feel valued, what it means to be an inclusive community that can hold the ground respectfully for everyone and open a space of graceful listening so that there can be a move to understand one another is something that the Church of Scotland is actively involved in. All ministers and pastors within our membership seek to love their congregations well and support everyone fully in their spiritual lives, and that absolutely includes those from the trans community. It is in our membership's interests and the whole of Scotland's interests that how this legislation works so that we get it right and for the benefit of everybody regardless of who they are. Your question, Karen, was very much about our organisations and how we implement changes regarding this bill. I do not know that there is anything specific in this bill that would impact any of our internal processes or anything in terms of people joining as members or taking up positions within the humanist organisation. I do accept the point that you made, Karen, about people being more willing to be open about their identity, so we might have people who are already involved who are not open about their identity and perhaps that would be more comfortable for them if they were able to access the bill as the bill proposes. Okay, thanks very much. Thanks to all our witnesses to this panel, it has been a really useful session for the committee. That concludes the public part of our meetings. We will now move into private for the final items on our agenda. Thank you all very much.