 Gwi fawr i fedw i fynd i adnwys ar y 14 o'r sesiwnstriw gwrthwyleth, du'u cymdeithasol a'r Cysyfodol a Gwyneddol Llywodraeth Cymru. Fy ydym wedi'i wyrddiadau i'r gwrthwyleth. Fy fawr i fod ar ei ffordd auta mwynebu deilig iawn i fynd i fynd i'r gelfaiddus ei ddweud Genauchodr. Gallwn ni'n bwysig i fynd i chi'n gofio amser a chi'n gofio o gyffredinol ar hwyl cymdeithasol. Rwy'n fawr i fod yn gweithio i'r gallu cy variabilityiddor Llywodraethfa而synГlwyddiff erioedd, i'r meddwluron nhw'n fynd i law tychw sydd rhun o'i drew Charstasylügau. Rwy'r first agenda erioedd eich cy пой ddaeth whiffrau gy Wak undergoing. Diolch� Bullet Cymru a arfer beth mae nodi i gwaelu'r arall a wedi'i g cellso yn gwneud i dim en 살짝 llawer o'r fawr o gondol gweithgwcleidol o'r stagion o'r gweithgwcleidol. Ond, rwy'n cael ei fawr o Этоil gaerdydd oes i gael ei fawr i'r ddau'r gweithgwcleidol, i gael eich eu cyntaf gwazogad a'r gweithgwcleidol. Rwy'n fawr i'n gwybod, maen nhw'n cytud o'r gweithgwyl gweithgwil, Fiq Valentine, gyda eu desgur honi gyda y Pwgolig trwy yr oedd fel eu reiliadau gangsteron yng Nghyrchu Dr Marey Cowford, CEO LGBT Youth Scotland, ac Colin McFarlane, director of Stonewall Scotland. Rwy'n credu i'n credu. Rydyn ni'n ddweud y gwirioneddau ymddangos ar gyfer y byd ac mae'n angen i'n gwirioneddau o'r bwysig i gael i gael i'r ysgolwch i'r byd i'r byd a'r byd ac i'r byd i'r mynd i'r byd. I readus i'r bwysig i'r byd i'r byd i gael i gael i'r byd. Can I invite our witnesses to make short opening statements starting with Vic Ballantine, please? A mi rŵis a chegi i gael y bydd y gêl y-tym-dweithio, yn 2004 was considered a ddechrau lluniau mewn ffordd o lawr. A ydynt i chi gweld ddechrau ar gyfer ar gyfer y bydd ymrydd ychwanegwyd yn rhan ffrindio transdoedd ar gyfer fynd i'n gwirioneddau ac yn ydy, rwy'n cael eu argynweddau. Fy ffrind allan o'r byd yn y gweithio course a now, in fact, the law we have here in Scotland is far behind international best practice. Some of the key reasons for this is because it's still required for trans people to submit a psychiatric diagnosis before they can obtain legal gender recognition. In 2019 the World Health Organization removed gender identity disorder from the mental health chapter of the ICD-11 and the fact that we still have this requirement is intensely pathologising and stigmatising. Trans people are not in and of ourselves, people with mental illnesses, our identities are not mental illnesses and it is not fair that we need to provide this psychiatric diagnosis to be recognised as who we are. Another reason that our process is far behind international best practice is that we are required to provide intrusive and detailed medical reports about choices we've made about our bodies before we can be legally recognised. This is despite the fact that there are no particular medical treatments that we need to have undergone but yet we have to send details of choices that we've made about our lives to a panel of doctors and judges to scrutinise. So instead across the world what we see is a move towards recognising trans people on the basis of self-determination underpinned by international human rights standards. So in many ways the provisions in this bill are to be welcomed. They would see Scotland move towards much better international best practice in this area but they aren't perfect, they wouldn't see Scotland be world leading if the bill were to go into effect and there are some key reasons for that. So there are no proposals to recognise non-binary people in the provisions of the bill so trans people who don't see ourselves as men or women and also there are no provisions in the bill to recognise trans people under the age of 16 so children and young people would continue to not be able to have identity documents that reflect who they are and how they live their lives. So we began consulting on gender recognition act reform way back in 2017. It's been a long journey to get to where we are today. So I'm really pleased to be here with the committee and I look forward to answering your questions and hopefully we can work together to make sure that Scotland can have a law that's fit for purpose for 2022. Thanks. Can I ask Dr Crawford please? Thank you. Just for the record, I'm very happy being called marry but normally I go by Vary but I will answer to both. Thank you all for the invite to be here and to support the process to scrutinise the draft bill to reform the Gender Recognition Act. Moving to have this bill in front of the Scottish Parliament is a huge step forward but I would add that trans young people are very clear that this bill doesn't go far enough or it doesn't make Scotland a policy leader in this area that just like Vicks outlined. You're already very aware of the history of the bill, the length of time since the first bill was introduced in 2004 and the time since it was proposed that this bill would be updated but that's not where my focus lies. My focus is on the impact that this delay has had on young people and the actions that this Parliament can make to help improve their lives moving forward. From our life in Scotland for LGBTI young people research published last month the average age of coming out as trans is 15. That would mean a 15-year-old person coming out in 2017 when work actively started on this bill would be about 20 now. During that time they're likely not to have been able to apply for a GRC firstly due to their age and then subsequently by the requirement for psychiatric diagnosis just as Vick had outlined and that also includes the time and cost to obtain that diagnosis the burden of evidence proving that they're living in their acquired agenda and they also know that they risk rejection without recourse from an unknown panel. During those five years that young person might have had to apply for a driving licence, passport, set up their first adult bank account, apply for college, university jobs all with identification documents that do not align with our gender identity and the GRC's only document that they can't obtain from 16. So please just take a second to think about that how it might feel knowing that you might be outed because your paperwork doesn't match or because the gender you're presenting at doesn't match your documentation. So while we know discrimination is not allowed in the workplace we regularly hear from young people where opportunities are lost or delayed once an employer finds out they're trans. And I've recently heard from young people I'm working with about investigations for fraud from, for example, a student loans company because their birth certificate does not match the rest of their identification even though they disclose this when they're first making their application or delays and, for example, completing right to work checks and they're accepting that as normal and I would challenge whether that's actually acceptable or not. So we've engaged with lots of young people over the course of the consultations 97% welcomed the minimum age being lowered from 18 to 16 to be in line with other rights accessible at age 16 in Scots law. That was also supported by two thirds of respondents in the 2018 consultation and 56% in the 2020 consultation. For young people specifically this validates them with one commenting, I think it was lower depression rates it would give that certainty, that validation and another said at 16, I was certain, articulate and capable in my knowledge of my gender and my rights. So we're concerned also that individuals who may not support this conflate both the legal process for obtaining a GRC with medical transition and I would encourage the committee to review feedback and evidence with critical eye and Colin will talk more on that shortly and I'm nearly done I promise. Young people also feel really strongly that there's no justification which warrants applicants living in their acquired gender for three months before applying for a GRC and for the three month reflection period. Indeed for both but particularly for the reflection period this is detrimental to those at the end of their life and could result in individuals not having their true gender reflected on their death certificate. Many of our young people felt that this requirement misunderstands experience of being trans noting that gender identity is an individual journey and in their own voices that trans people have already undergone a period of deep reflection before even telling other people that they're trans. So in general telling people that their trans is an early step and applying for a GRC is often the last if they even apply at all. It's also inconsistent with other statutory declarations. So the provisions in the bill are an important step forward but they don't go far enough. More than 80% of our consultation respondents felt that there should be an option for young people under the age of 16 and one person noted that dysphoria doesn't wait till you're 16. In addition 96% were in favour of non-binary recognition and non-binary respondents reported feeling let down by the Scottish Government on this. I would ask that the committee consider carefully these areas because they present opportunities to make this world leading. Progressing in this bill can't come soon enough for young people to help them and live the best lives that they can I'm aware that a couple of weeks ago you heard directly from trans young people about their lived experience and I'm sure you'll agree that their stories are very powerful and must be central to the decision making. Young people we're working with on gender recognition reform just want you to listen to trans people and for it to be acknowledged how difficult and draining this process is for trans individuals. You've got the power to improve the lives of trans young people for the better, to give them a better start in life. Being a young trans person in Scotland can be really joyful but it can also be really difficult and I'm looking forward to your questions to support you in progressing the bill shortly. Thank you. Colin McFarlane, please. Thank you convener and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence today and I'd just like to say as well that I would like to align Stonewall Scotland with comments made by my colleagues Vic and Vary. I'm really pleased to be here today and to see at last the draft bill to reform the Gender Recognition Act begin its important process of detailed parliamentary scrutiny. It has been a long time coming and as colleagues have stated it's now six years since the Scottish Government stated its intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act and to bring Scotland in line with international best practice and in that time we've seen an ever-growing number of countries move to a system of self-decoration with Switzerland being the latest country to do so. Over the past six years we've also seen two major public consultations with over 34,000 people responding and the committee also launched its own call for views which closed yesterday. I don't think it's a fib to say that this is probably the most consulted piece of public policy that's ever happened in the history of the Scottish Parliament. But there has also been a lot of public discourse about this bill and sadly however a significant amount of that discourse much of it in large sections of our media but also online and on social media have been full of misinformation about the proposed changes that reform of the GRA in particular is going to lead to a detriment in rights of others. That isn't true and those concerns have continually been raised about misunderstandings and misinformation about that reform would mean. So I think it's important to clarify that GRA reform does not affect access to single sex services and facilities. GRA reform does not affect the Equality Act 2010 Gender Reassignments Protections and Exemptions. GRA reform will not affect sports competitions. GRA reform does not affect any NHS clinical decision making and crucially GRA reform would not permit anyone to flip-flop legal genders across different situations or days. The self-declaration process is a statutory declaration of the intention to live permanently in their gender identity and this bill will put forward significant criminal sanctions on a false declaration. It's also important to note that along with the misinformation about the bill a lot of the public discourse about trans people has been happening without trans people being in the room or at the table. Trans people tell us that a significant amount of the reporting and discussions present trans people as a problem that need to be solved and that has unfortunately been a whipping up of a moral panic and an othering of trans people in the public discourse. Trans people are not an ideology. Trans people are our friends, our family and our colleagues. They are human beings wanting to go about their daily lives. And I think it's really important that the committee remembers that as it begins its vital scrutiny of the bill. Finally I think it's also important to point out that support for trans equality and the proposed changes are backed by the majority of the public. The latest poll published by the BBC in February this year showed that 57% of people overall supported simplifying the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate with women being 63% in favour. Yes, there are concerns and we recognise those concerns but we hope that as the committee takes evidence from those in support and from those who do not support this bill that it will base its considerations on fact and evidence and truth. And with that in mind that the bill progresses fact, evidence and truth will hopefully allay the concerns that some have about this bill. So we look forward to working with the committee to progress this bill and I look forward to taking your questions today. Thank you. Thank you all. Now move on to questions and if I can ask Pam Duncan-Glancy first. Thank you convener and thank you to the panel for your evidence that you've submitted in advance and also for what you've said so far. I'd also like to thank you for the work that you've done for the people who you represent in the past year and before that and to recognise the significant work and effort that has gone into your work for LGBT people over the years. I'd just like to thank you for that. My first questions was going to be around the case for change but I think a lot of that has been made actually in setting out your stall as it were. I have one question in that area remaining though. Can you tell us a little bit more about the hidden costs of applying for a gender recognition certificate? I think that the UK Government reduced the fee from £140 to £5 a couple of years ago and that was really welcomed but I think that often people aren't aware of the fact that it's not actually just the fee to apply that tends to accumulate when it comes to people making an application for a gender recognition certificate. So at the moment in Scotland the largest gender identity clinic the Sandyford has a waiting list of a bit more than four years for a first appointment. Because you need to provide a psychiatric diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate that means that many people choose to go down a private healthcare route instead so that can see you spending several hundreds maybe up to roughly £1,000 in terms of thinking about two to three appointments with a private clinician. Also in providing your medical evidence reports you have to, as a rule, your GP writes that second medical evidence report for you. They're able to charge up to £130 for those reports. The panel normally requires your evidence of living in your required gender to include updates to other identity documents which are able to change before getting legal gender recognition so obviously if you change your passport that will cost nearly £100. If you change your driver's licence that might cost you about £20. It's not impossible basically for people to accrue costs of several hundreds up to £1,000 in order to get that evidence they need to make a submission. So even though it's great that the fee is reduced from £140 to £5 actually in the kind of grand scheme of things when it comes to bringing all of that evidence together you'd need to make an application it can still be really prohibitively expensive and it means that poorer trans people people living in poverty are unable to apply whereas rich trans people are able to access the process. Thank you. That's really helpful. If it's okay I'll move on to a question around some of the procedures and in the submission from Stonewall and the Equality Network you note that in section 8U1C allowing for the Registrar General to make a provision for or about information or evidence to be included in an application was a concern. Could you tell us a bit more about your concern? Do you think this section of the bill should be included as primary legislation or what do you think we should do about the concerns around that? I found it odd that it was regulation as well to be honest. I think that our concerns are that if it's not limited what the powers are around what additional evidence might be required within primary legislation then that means hypothetically that the Registrar General might require evidence above and beyond what's laid out in the provisions of the bill that is in fact equal to the current evidence requirements of the existing process and that would obviously fundamentally undermine the purpose of the bill. Although it does require the consent of Scottish ministers I think it would probably be more appropriate for it to require a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny I think it's perfectly reasonable that there might be some instances where the Registrar General does want to request some additional evidence from some applicants but I think that historically the way we've seen trans people treated is that it tends to be that if you allow people to think that they can make a decision about how much scrutiny we should be put under that that tends to turn into questions around things like medical evidence and diagnoses and so I just think that it's really important that if the policy principles of the bill are to guarantee that Scotland now has a process that is one based on self-determination then we need to make sure that that decision by the Parliament can't be undermined potentially in the future by the Registrar General having powers to introduce those evidence requirements back into the system again. Thank you. If I can just echo those comments and I think in our submission we said we had some concern around that and in particular it was the line in the policy memorandum which said that it removes the routine and our emphasis was on the routine because then it is sort of implying that there will be potentially the requirement for trans people to provide documentation which, as Vic says, kind of flies in the face of the policy intent of what this bill will do and again we agree that as it sits in the bill it probably does need further parliamentary scrutiny or higher level parliamentary scrutiny to avoid what Vic is just out there so again we'd align with what Vic was saying there about that section. Thank you, that is also very helpful. I have one further question if there's time and I'll retain the international for later. In your evidence you've set out why you support change and you know that trans people can just now without a gender recognition certificate socially transition. Can you set out what difference it makes for a trans person to have a gender recognition certificate what rights it would secure that they otherwise wouldn't have and why are they important? I think there's sort of two aspects to this. There's both the kind of practical aspects so thinking about the situations in which you might have to show your birth certificate as an identity document maybe the one that's most likely to happen to me for example is say if you're going for a new job and that you then need to show a birth certificate as proof of right to work in the UK. Fairly stressful starting a new job anyway if you've then got to show a document that fundamentally kind of doesn't align with how you see yourself how you live your life perhaps has a different name on it all your other identity documents the name you applied for that job with that's you know it is it's distressing it's embarrassing it doesn't give you choice or ownership about the point at which you might choose to share with colleagues that you're a trans person it takes that away from you you are able your ability to make that decision and also I think there's something kind of there's something about being recognised as who you are for lots of trans people it is it's upsetting to know that kind of in terms of a document that is supposed to be about us that we might have to show and something that determines how the state sees us again is so fundamentally opposed to how we see ourselves and so whilst it is whilst the gender recognition certificate is not actually that consequential in all of that many circumstances when it comes to how trans people are able to live our lives and the rights that it gives to us it is important to trans people to be recognised and to have the reality of who we are and how we move through the world properly shown and represented on our identity documents and also properly kind of seen and believed by the state I think for young people it's even more important because when you are starting out leaving school applying for your first jobs applying for college, university maybe a student loan or other things you're less likely to have the full suite of match documentation and then the gender certificate would be the one thing different and actually that's just an additional hurdle for them so if you think of supporting every young person to have the best opportunity they can to start out in life actually having that mismatch documentation is an additional hurdle as Vic said it's the risk of being outed and by the time you get to your mid 30s maybe you've been out for a long time you might get a bit harder into it but it's still difficult and if you've only been out for a few years and you're just starting out you're very comfortable in your gender you know who you are but we have young people who will not apply for that gender recognition certificate at the moment because of the additional hurdles and actually that would just I don't want to see level the flip playing field but actually give them an opportunity to be who they know they are and that makes a huge difference and actually removes barriers and actually I suppose helps them have a better opportunity just when they're starting out and just to kind of reiterate that certainly trans people tell us particularly in the situation around work for example you know Barry talks about young people going into work for the first time who have lived in their quiet gender for many many years but who haven't gone through the process of applying for a GRC and then have a real fear about what that might mean about how they can move through the world as themselves without that and in particular in the world of work where we know that trans people still face significant discrimination for who they are that this is a real barrier to moving into the world of work because of the fear that they might have of being outed so again just to reiterate simplifying the process removing the medicalisation piece of it removing the burden of evidence around it will encourage hopefully people who wish to apply for a GRC to do so and therefore are able to live as themselves and navigate the world in a way that's kinder and fairer and then the practical bits of being able to participate whether that be at work whether that be in school education further education and that's certainly what trans people tell us about why they really want to see this reform Thank you Thank you Maggie Thanks very much Joe Good morning to the panel, thank you for joining us this morning and can I echo Pam Duncan Glancy's comments and thanks to you for the work you've done not only in presenting written evidence to us prior to today but for what you've said already and of course for the support that you provide to the people that you and your organisations represent I'd like to explore in a little bit more detail three specific areas of the draft legislation firstly the requirement to live in one's acquired or inherent gender for three months the spoutal consent and interim GRC issue and the person with interest issue so to take the living in the acquired or inherent gender for three months you spoke a little bit about this in your opening remarks and could I just ask you and Vic and Colin as well we know there are competing opinions or views about this some people think that three months is about right some people think it's too long some people think it's too short it's a reduction from the current two years obviously can you explain what your view is provisioned do you think we should retain that living in an inherent gender for three months prior to getting a GRC and if so Colin you mentioned a little bit about the burden of evidence is there any risk that there would be requirements to creep into those three months around proof I'll start with Barry and then come to Colin and Vic I think it's a very good question we certainly hear from young people very regularly that the GRC is one of the last things they would apply for and currently that's because of the burden of proof and Vic's talked about the waiting list just to get to see the psychiatrist for example to get that medical diagnosis but even with that being removed actually if you think about young person coming out they say that they live and do an awful lot of reflection to actually understand their two gender and then they come out usually to a safe a safe group and then from that they build up so by the time they're actually looking to apply for gender recognition certificate they have been living in the required gender for really quite some time and I do want to make sure Vic has an opportunity to talk about it from a lived experience as well but we and as young people are going through that all their other documentation as well without the need for that it's a statutory declaration what I would say is that 90% about 90% of the young people we consulted with either felt that they were reducing the lived experience requirement from two years to three months was good or it was okay but could be better and it just doesn't go far enough I mean don't get me wrong it's a step in the right direction but they really young people really want to shorten or eliminate that lived experience requirement very interestingly when I've been speaking with young people what they're really focused on is not just themselves but also trans people towards the end of their life and if you think about having that lived experience requirement there actually if you've got someone who maybe has six months left to live maybe they've got enough time to get the GRC maybe they don't and if you think about that individual then on their death certificate everything else not matching not being able to be their two gender I hate to use the word fear but it just doesn't seem that it's it's right so yeah we would definitely quite strongly say that the requirement for lived experience is not necessary I've just back what Various said there we in our evidence at the committee have said that we oppose that requirement for the applications to include the statutory declaration of lived and acquired gender for three months we don't think the Scottish government seems to have made its case for any justification for that three month period although it claims that it would be quote a reasonable length of time to demonstrate a serious commitment behind the application but as Various and Vick have stated trans people have lived as themselves for long periods of time and applicants if we move to our determination or self declaration system are going to have to make a solemn statutory declaration to a notary public or justice of the peace and there are significant criminal penalties if you are making fraudulent applications and I think in our view that coupled with trans people who they say they are demonstrates a suitable serious commitment and I think as far as we're aware there aren't any similar provisions in any of the other modern systems of gender recognition for applicants to have lived and acquired gender for a defined period and again this kind of sits what am I trying to say it doesn't sit within the policy intent of what the Scottish government is intending to do around reform of the Gender Recognition Act by still saying that a trans person has got to have lived and acquired gender for a defined period of time so our view is unnecessary I don't think I have loads in addition to add I think I was in particular going to stress that it does seem to be quite a unique requirement it's possible given the fact that I have to read translated versions of lots of the bills that that's not actually true but as far as we're aware there isn't any other self declaration model anywhere in any of the jurisdictions around the world of which there's more than 30 now that recognise trans people by self declaration that have this requirement for you to have lived in your acquired gender for a set period of time before you can apply for legal gender recognition and I think also what lots of trans people feel is that it's just quite arbitrary because I completely wholeheartedly agree that only trans people who are permanently living in their gender and who feel confident that they are making an application on the basis of that being permanent should be able to apply but I think the fact that it is true declaration and that you have to make that declaration that it will be permanent and that that's a witness legal oath in and of itself is the thing that safeguards making sure that people are only choosing to apply at a point at which they're ready to for many trans people when we come out and when we transition it's we aren't sort of all of a sudden aware of all of the rights that we're able to access and lots of us are quite cautious about taking steps when it comes to making social transition and we want to wait until we're ready we're sure we want to wait until we're confident that we're making the right decision about things and so I imagine that for the vast majority of people they'll probably apply much later than three months after they've been living in their acquired gender but I don't think that we should have as a hard and fast rule you know if somebody actually is ready even if that's a really small number of people but if somebody is ready and does feel able to make that statutory declaration sincerely sooner than three months after they've permanently transitioned then I don't think that there's any reason to necessarily prevent them from doing so Thanks for that If I can move on to the question of spousal consent and interim GSEs the draft legislation that we've got at the moment replicates the current provisions can you tell us what you think about those are you content with that do you think it needs to change? Yeah, broadly our contempt with that I think that in the past we had been disappointed that given that there's such a small number of grounds on which you can get divorce or dissolution I think that overall it is quite stigmatising that one of those very small number of grounds that you can access divorce or dissolution is that your spouse has obtained a gender recognition certificate however also very strongly of the view that all spouses or civil partners should be able to end their marriage or civil partnerships for whatever reason they want to so in terms of replicating the system as it currently works I think it's a kind of fair balance of ensuring that people are able to leave their marriage or civil partnership if they are unhappy with their partner but also that a spouse or civil partner cannot block a trans person from accessing their legal rights but would say that in the future if no fault divorce became possible in Scotland then there would probably no longer be the need to have this kind of slightly convoluted process for all the various permutations of being granted interim gender recognition certificates if you're married Thanks Vic, Colin, do you have anything to add? No, I think Vic said that very comprehensively Very, you're happy to My last question is around the person with interest the provision where a person with interest could apply to have a GRC revoked Just ask for your comments Colin maybe I'll start with you So we have strong reservations about that inclusion of section 8 S I think it is which would enable a person who has an interest in the gender recognition certificate to apply to the sheriff to have that certificate revoked I think it's worth noting that in the public consultation of the draft bill the consultation paper provided the Registrar General for Scotland as an example for a person with an interest in the gender recognition certificate but the explanatory notes quite expand on that and it gives the spouse, the civil partner or a child of a person who's obtained a gender recognition certificate as further examples of people who have genuine interest and I think we are extremely concerned that this provision could enable family members who are not supportive of a person's decision to transition to make fixatious and malicious applications to the sheriff to have that gender recognition certificate revoked so we do have real concerns and I think we would seek further clarification I think it would be good for the committee to seek further clarification over the grounds for determining as to whether a person making that application for revocation would have an interest in the gender recognition certificate and I think we're also aware that there are groups that are strongly opposed to reform the Gender Recognition Act and let's be fair do not believe that trans people are valid and I think we are concerned about whether they potentially might be able to make, might be classed as people of interest or a person of interest or individuals within those groups that might make fixatious applications to have GRCs revoked so we do have concern we think there's further clarification for that needed and we would urge the committee that's particularly when the cabinet secretary and officials are giving evidence that they pursue that further Thanks Colin. Vic, I mean Barry Yeah, so as Colin said we do have some quite significant concerns around this so in section 8 of the current Gender Recognition Act the people who are able to apply to have a gender recognition certificate revoked are limited to spouse or civil partner and to the secretary of state so it would make sense for it to now be the registrar general because it was an administrative procedure that would be the registrar general who kind of headed up the unit that was dealing with gender recognition rather than the secretary of state for the tribunal but yeah, I mean as Colin said I think so we think that all of the grounds on which a GRC could be revoked are like totally reasonable, I think it's totally reasonable that a gender recognition certificate is able to be challenged because someone thinks it's been applied for fraudulently but I think that we need to be honest about the situation when it comes to kind of how accepted trans people are within society and I think we included in our submission that the last time the Scottish social attitudes research was done 32% of people said they'd be unhappy of a family member married a trans person and more recent polling showed that 12% of Britons would kind of be strongly opposed to a family member coming out as trans or non-binary and I think that there's real concern about what the what a person who is applying to have a GRC revoked is what is the burden of proof that they have to demonstrate that the case that they are making is one that is worthy of being considered because what I'm imagining potentially is that you then may end up in a situation where a trans person has to go before a sheriff court to demonstrate that they haven't fraudulently applied for a gender recognition certificate that might involve them having to provide all the sorts of evidence currently required by the gender recognition panel but having to do that in a kind of conflict in court scenario where they are essentially arguing with a family member or another person who's demonstrated an interest that would actually be a significantly more difficult and traumatising process than the current one we think it would be much more appropriate for it to continue to be limited to spouses and civil partners or the Registrar General and I think that I would include imagining that that means that people who had concerns could go to the Registrar General and explain to them why they felt that a GRC had been obtained fraudulently and for the Registrar General to be able to take the choice about whether that was worth taking forward and making that application to the Sheriff Court but I think we do just have real concerns as well I think because the current provisions in the GRA say that the Court of Session is what would hear it as well and there is something about the combination of widening the scope and lowering the court at which it would be heard that seems to us to indicate the potential for potentially large numbers relatively of vexatious claims being made against people that they've applied fraudulently Thanks Vic Particularly for young people we're seeing positive steps I'm just looking up research so for example a number of transgender participants receiving a very supportive reaction to coming out has gone up from 70% to 77% but only a quarter of them or just less than a quarter of them are actually coming out to family first so our concern is if they don't have that supportive family then actually there might be vexatious challenges through the courts for young people who have acquired a GRC and their parents or carers or supporters are not challenging that and that's borne out a little bit by still we've got 28% of trans young people leaving home not under positive circumstances so while family there's a risk to to young people obtaining a GRC that they might not have the support of the family and the family may choose to challenge that in court and that's our particular concern in that area and then it goes into exactly what Vic and Cullen have said about the reasons why Thanks very much Thank you and Pam, please Good morning panel and thank you for your opening statements My question is around lowering the minimum age If I'm correct the Scottish trans alliance welcomes the lowering of the minimum age but they also state that there should be provisions for individuals struggling with their application to request support and these should be especially sensitive to those under 18 who may be applying without the support of a parent or a guardian they go on to say explainers on what GRC means and how it could be used would be helpful if individuals of a certain age are unable to understand what a GRC means and how it would be used and require additional support to submit and understand an application that perhaps lowering the minimum age would be unwise and the question to Vic first Yes sure That very well might be a direct quote or something that we've said although I don't remember if I've said it on my head what it is so I think that it would be really valuable for applicants of all ages to have accessible information about the effects of obtaining a gender recognition certificate I think that people should make that application with full knowledge of what its effects are I don't think that 16 or 17 year olds necessarily might you know I don't think as a rule necessarily require more support than some people over 18 I think it will depend on the individual circumstances of each person who's applying and also I think that it's really important to reiterate what a GRC is in the sense of it is a certificate you apply for to update the sex on your birth certificate there are many 16 and 17 year olds however who have completely socially transitioned they're out to their families they're friends, they're out in education settings they're out at work if they're interested in medically transitioning they may have already started to wait to access medical treatment so I think that by not allowing 16 and 17 year olds to apply for a gender recognition certificate none of those other things stop happening all that you end up with is a group of trans people who may be permanently living in their gender but who are unable to update the sex on their birth certificate and who are therefore open to a lack of privacy around their trans status so I think that it's really important that information is available for applicants about what applying for a GRC means but I don't necessarily think that that information should only be for 16 and 17 year olds I think it should be for everyone Thank you, Dr Crawford Thank you I think I would just echo that it's not about being 16 or 17 there are many many reasons why an individual might need additional documentation additional support those with additional support needs I certainly have there are certainly people out there who might for example suffer or not suffer but have dyslexia or need support to translate written information into forms that you might want to submit and that's not age specific excuse me for stumbling through that but yeah I think the other thing around that is that it's just making sure for any applicant that they understand the remit of what the GRC does and actually it is about the birth certificate and not only changing your sex on that and it's not conflated with other things and just as there's confusion within the general public actually there's education to be done within the trans community as well about the limit and actually just how far the GRC goes and actually it won't cover a whole range of things just as Colin particularly outlined at the start in his opening statement Thank you Dr Crawford, Colin I've got nothing to add to that because I think the point that Barry just made there about the wider public piece and the information and education piece I think is really important so again I would just echo what Vic and Barry have said on that specific point Just going back to Dr Crawford what you said about the support so obviously Vic you're saying it's something you've said about having explainers so actually you're looking at a much wider support mechanism here if you're looking at people that have disabilities and basically need that extra help so it's not just an explainer on a piece of paper so there will have to be support services there to be provided to say what a GRC is and what it means Am I right that's what you're saying it's more than just explainers and descriptions What I'm saying is that the potential for additional support would be the same for that individual across a whole range of things it's not actually even limited to the GRC so for example if you've got an individual with additional support needs whatever they might be that they might need additional explainers information support to fill out paper work for a whole range of things and actually it shouldn't just be limited to the GRC Thank you Thank you convener Thank you and now Karen please Thank you convener Good morning and welcome to the committee I'd like to ask in regards to your written submissions you have shown support for the removal of the requirement for the applicant to have medical evidence of gender dysphoria and you've also shown support for the replacement of the GRP with the registrar general Can you explain your reasons why and can you include any issues that you see with providing medical evidence Can I ask Vic first please Yes so I think the removal of the requirement for a psychiatric diagnosis and for medical evidence are kind of the things that we most strongly support about the provisions in the bill because fundamentally being trans who we are our identities they are not mental health conditions and it kind of really unfairly stigmatises us to require us to provide a psychiatric diagnosis to be legally recognised as who we are and I think as I said in my opening statements as well one thing that is particularly intrusive about the current process is the requirement to provide detailed medical reports about choices you've made about your body when they do not determine your eligibility for a gender recognition certificate and we know that quite a lot of people have encountered problems with the gender recognition panel because of the specific way in which their medical evidence reports are worded so you then end up in this really strange situation where someone will apply for a gender recognition certificate and their application will not necessarily be rejected but the panel will come back to them and require changes to their application because of the way they have described a particular surgical intervention that they've undergone even though they do not need to have undergone any particular surgical intervention but the panel will say you've not described this particular medical treatment in the precise language that we would like you to describe it so you need to resend your application you need to go back to that doctor get a new medical report that uses what they would consider the sort of accurate wording and then reapply even though you do not need to have had to that surgical intervention so it's like this really odd situation where it can be a significant barrier to people getting a gender recognition certificate but it's all kind of about the specifics of the wording it's not actually about the choices that you've made in terms of the panel generally I mean I think that trans people trans people are really opposed to the fact that we have to send off a pack to a tribunal of doctors and judges that never meet us who essentially then hold quarterly meetings to look at our applications and decide if who we are how we live our lives should be legally recognised it's one of the aspects of the current process that people find the kind of most offensive I guess difficult to feel like a panel of strangers that you'll never meet have that power in their hands and particularly when the way the current system is set up the people who are applying already know who they are that is simply who they are the fact that you have to send off this application is really distressing for people and so I think that it's a really welcome aspect of the bill that the panel will be removed I think in particular if the provisions in the bill demedicalising the process and removing lots of the evidence requirements remain as they are then also they'll kind of not be very much for a panel to scrutinise it would make sense for it to be done in a more administrative way and it would just bring Scotland significantly more in line with those places around the world that have made these kinds of reforms already when that's what updating your birth certificate that's what getting legal gender recognition is it's a simple quick transparent administrative process it is one based on your own declaration of who you are and it doesn't require this kind of outside expertise or verification of your identity so yeah very supportive of those aspects of the bill Can I just come in with us up there you mentioned the GRP so the panel wouldn't necessarily meet the person at all applying no no you never meet the panel and they're made up of what type of people doctors and judges so they're not necessarily experts in regards to gender normally one of the doctors is a retired gender specialist but no not everybody okay thank you Can I offer a quote from one of our young people and then I'll talk a little bit more this relates to the question but also relates to just what Vic was talking about so this young person told us that they were originally looking to apply in their late teens and early twenties so that all their legal documentation was matching as they'd begun to have issues with the fact that they weren't when applying for things like insurance, jobs, PBG health travel cards etc so they then decided not to apply after reading through the process and discovering that it could be rejected without recourse particularly given the financial barriers to applying in the first place they found it a really difficult decision and one that they struggle with even now when they could maybe afford the risk but they felt like the medical process in particular was overly invasive and that the documentation wouldn't reflect who they are but that also comes at the cost of them being vulnerable in situations when they're applying for jobs now etc but they've also now realised that that's delaying things like looking into getting married or having children and they're also worried about how they'll be recorded when they die if they want it to be effective to the way they've lived their life so actually the burden of medical evidence actually has quite significant impact and if you think about, for example, a young person we know that work is under way to reduce the waiting times at gender identity clinics but the wait time and first appointment, as Vic said it's expected to be over four years in some cases there's over a thousand young people so that's 17 and under in the waiting list in Scotland that's a huge number and that leaves young trans men and women in limbo where they can't progress with medical transition they can and often do progress with social transition but they can't progress with that medical transition so under the current scheme if they're waiting that long to attain even the first appointment then there's no way that they can actually even consider getting a gender recognition certificate under the current scheme so that's one of the reasons we're really, really keen on that changing and then the other aspect is very much moving it into line with international best practice and this would be one area that Scotland would take sort of look to mirror best practice across the globe Just come back in there you touched upon the number of people on the waiting list and a question that's came up is that with this making it easier for people to apply for a GRC that there will be an increase in people coming forward could you explain maybe why that would be so at the moment if you are a young person you are less likely to have lots of surplus income so if you consider what Vic talked about earlier in response to Pam's question about the costs young person is not necessarily going to be able to afford the private healthcare to actually accelerate the process so a young person entering and going on the waiting list they'll be on the waiting list for years and that's a delaying that just delays them currently being able to get that psychiatric diagnosis to be able to progress so actually by removing that barrier you think there's a thousand young people on the waiting list that means there's probably many more that aren't even on the waiting list then that actually supports young people to be able to access the GRC that then supports them to start adult life, move into adult life with documentation that matches removing the need to have potentially out themselves from having mismatched documentation or to out themselves from their lived gender not reflecting all their documentation so that tells us quite important thank you Colin I don't think I've got much to add Vic and Barry have touched on the points for example that when you're looking at the growing number of countries around the world that are moving to this system and removing that medicalised approach we are lagging behind last week ILGA World which ranks European countries on their progressive policies around LGBT equality we found that the UK has dropped from we were first a good few years ago down to 14 we were 10 I think the year before so we are plummeting down the list of progressive countries around LGBT equality and one of the reasons that they gave was around the fact that we still maintain this medicalised process and we don't have a self declaration process so as Barry and Vic have pointed out that removing that to a self determination self declaration process we'll see as moving in line with the growing number of countries around the world that have this system in place and I think that the other bit I would say around for example the removal of the panel I cannot begin to imagine compiling piles and piles and piles of evidence putting that towards a panel of people who do not know me will never meet me have no idea who I really am will make up their minds based on the evidence provided and then make a decision about whether I can say who I am and be able to live my life and navigate myself through the world. I can't begin to imagine how that must feel and so I think the removal of the panel system replacing the rest to general I think makes it a far more humane system less intrusive system and will allow trans people to flourish and to thrive and I think that should be a position that all of us want to see Let's get it, thank you Thank you very much Thank you and Alexander please Good morning and thank you for your comments and evidence to date Can I first of all start with non-binary now you touched on this already this morning and it would be good to get a flavour in some of the presentations you talked about non-binary people being let down by this bill so the bill does not include non-binary in it but the Scottish Government has set up a non-binary working group to identify some of the issues that are around here so it would be quite good to get your views on the legal recognition of non-binary people and how you see that progressing I think that we can start with Vic Thanks for the question I'm a non-binary person if the bill were to go through as is it would continue to be the case that I'm unable to change the sex on my birth certificate or have legal recognition of who I am the lack of legal recognition for non-binary people is definitely an aspect of the bill I would potentially say the aspect of the bill in fact that the whole of the trans community including trans men and trans women are most disappointed about I think that legally recognising non-binary people would have been the change in this law that would have been the one that meant it was an ambitious law reform that it truly tried to make sure that all trans people in Scotland were legally recognised who we are and so I was also I've been involved in the work of the non-binary working group and really welcomed that and I think that the recommendations of that group will be out in the near future but it's important to say that that group was set up on the understanding that ministers, Scottish ministers had taken the decision that non-binary legal recognition wouldn't happen and that if that group were to make that recommendation that it is likely that that would continue to be the position of Scottish ministers and I don't disagree with the Scottish government's analysis in the policy memorandum that legally recognising non-binary people would have a range of consequences you know we currently have a legal system and indeed a society that presumes and treats all people as men and women but non-binary people ourselves are already navigating the kind of messy complexities of that because we are neither men nor women and we have to kind of try and make do as best we can within frameworks that don't see that and don't recognise that so I think it would be I would really like to see something in this bill that ensures that we can make meaningful progress within a kind of set period of time on taking us from what I would see as now a bit of an impasse that has been reached where we are kind of acknowledging and in agreement of the fact that there would be consequences of non-binary legal recognition we need to work through exactly what those are we need to make decisions about when we would or wouldn't need to change things as a result of it but I suppose my concern is that what we are tending to see is the fact that there will be consequences the fact that it might be complicated be kind of raised over and over but not significant work going into how we kind of solve those complexities where we currently are and certainly in my view I think that there's some of the issues that are raised are things that could be easily solved I mean historically it probably won't surprise people to know that we used to write laws like only men are people and we passed the interpretation act a few decades ago to kind of say that in certain aspects of law where the law only refers to men we should also presume that it's also talking about women there will be aspects of law where simple things like that could apply to non-binary people there will be other aspects of law where the law intends to treat people differently on the basis of sexual gender and those sorts of aspects of legislation might need to be looked at more carefully but I think that we can figure all of this out and there are states particularly around Europe that have invested quite a lot of time and energy into really really looking at these issues in detail I think Belgium for example commissioned like a very in depth expert research and report into this area and so I am, I am disappointed the trans community is disappointed that non-binary people are not proposed to be legally recognised in this bill and I would really kind of welcome any way that we could put provisions in the bill to at least ensure that progress is made really meaningful progress is made in this area going forward Thank you, I value your comment, do you have anything to add? Yeah just a couple of quick points if that's okay So I think it's worth reflecting that for example in the UK government's 2018 national LGBT survey over half of under 24 year old respondents identified trans respondents identified as non-binary so actually there's a population out there who are being let down by this bill and that's how they they're telling us that that's how they feel I think it would be worth saying that the sort of a growing number of jurisdictions around the world are providing legal recognition of non-binary people not to negate the challenges but actually there are ways forward and certainly I think we would like to see within the legislation a requirement from ministers to review the recommendations of the non-binary working group and also investigate how we can ensure non-binary people can receive legal recognition with the timescale put out I think in our submission we said that the maximum time would be five years from enactment of the legislation but if there's a way to bring that in earlier we'd certainly very much welcome that certainly and when we engage with young people and consulted with them and we've held multiple consultations on this just referring back to Colin's point earlier that this is a very highly consulted on bill but 96% of the young people we consulted with were in favour of non-binary recognition so young people are saying quite strongly that this is something that's really important to them in the future What do you want to? Just very quickly again to echo my colleagues' comments this is a big disappointment we are disappointed that non-binary identities and non-binary people are not included in this bill we think it's a really missed opportunity and it doesn't mean that in its current form the GRA bill is passed that it will be being in line with international best practice so we'll be somewhere there but we won't be fully there and joining other jurisdictions that do have that and again to echo what Varian Vic was saying we think we would want to see some consideration of of how the bill in future might or an act in future might be able to include non-binary identity and we would probably encourage the committee to consider the merits of introducing amendments to the bill that would place a duty in the Scottish ministers to review the impact or lack thereof that will have on non-binary people or fully scoping non-binary legal recognition and then setting out their next steps to Parliament If you look over C section 7 of the Gender Recognition Act 2015 in Ireland, stipulated that the relevant minister should quote within two years commence a review of the operation of this legislation and to report in the review within 12 months of its commencement so the initial report of that review found that the act was operating successfully and it recommended following extensive legal analysis and consultation with relevant stakeholders that legal recognition should be available to non-binary people so we would want to see something in the bill through amendments or whatever that will put a duty in the Scottish ministers to do scoping or to make sure that this is included in a later date but not like 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 years down the line sooner than that My second question I want to touch on the impact of women and girls now this has probably been the area within the bill that has caused a lot of controversy you've touched on this morning about the debate on media and social media and Colin you talked about fact evidence and truth when you gave your initial statement so when we're talking about this has been one of the most controversial whether it really is opposition and the opposition comes about because of the threat that women and girls have when it comes to single women only spaces such as potentially the changing room or the refuge the hospital ward or the toilet these are the areas that people have come across and have given examples about now the equality act allows for trans people to be excluded from single sex spaces at present so can I ask with reference to the equality act provisions that we have what is the expectation from this bill that will see anything changing with the exceptions that already are in place and how are the use of the applied how that will affect an impact on women and girls and is anything within the bill going to change as a result of some of that impact maybe Colin you want to try and unravel some of that to start with so obviously we absolutely recognise that some women have concerns about this bill I think it's also very important to state that many many other women do not have concerns about this bill and are very supportive of this bill in relation to what you said there about the equality act I think it's really crucial to point out and as I know I made that in my opening comments that the the G.R.A. has no impact on the equality act 2010 the changes within the G.R.A. are not changing anything in the equality act the equality act is not up for review so those things that you mentioned around single sex spaces and the exemptions continue and exist and will continue to exist the G.R.A. will not impact on on on those changes and it's unfortunate really deeply unfortunate I think that there has been misinformation some of it deliberate around what the provisions of this bill will mean for the impact of women and girls and and when you look at the jurisdictions around the world that are introducing the system as far as we are aware there have been no negative impacts of introducing the system and a demuniation of rights of women and girls so that's my point about facts and evidence that the evidence would suggest that the introduction of this bill will not have negative impacts on those areas whether that be as you said access to single sex services or changes to the equality act and I think it's really really important and the committee holds that because what the proposals here are setting out are about demedicalising an intrusive process and allowing trans people to have a simpler system of self declaration nothing changes around single sex spaces, single sex exemptions and around the equality act that will remain the same the equality act is not up for review just to clarify that so within your submission and with the question that you just answered you do not believe that there's a threat there's no pose of a threat to women and young girls within this process that the provisions are within the bill what you are then suggesting perhaps and this is part of the discourse which has been horrible if I'm being very honest is the idea that trans people are a threat and in particular trans women are a threat this presentation of trans people and trans women in particular as an othering of trans women that somehow they are there's something to be scared of and that the provisions in this bill make that even worse is that trans people are human beings they are valid they are not a threat to the wider public and some of the framing of the discussion around this bill has been really unfortunate and it has seen the othering of trans people particularly trans women as something that should be afraid of and I have to say I'm 45 years old so I grew up in the 80s came out in the late 90s a lot of the discourse around this is reminiscent of the discourse around lesbian, gay and bi identities and particularly around gay men that we were somehow predatory that we were a threat to children that we were a safeguarding risk that there was something inherently dangerous about us and the same rhetoric is being used around trans people and particularly trans women around the reform of this bill again I would say look across the world countries are operating these systems you look across the island Daenerys neighbour that's had this system since 2015 there's been no no instances of people using this in a way that would enable them to be a threat and a danger to women and girls and I don't think anybody here at all would ever conceivably sit here and defend a piece of legislation that we generally thought was going to harm women and girls and would take away their rights I don't know how to follow that I think all I can say as I suppose as a woman is that looking at the bill the bill is about gender a piece of paper it's about a birth certificate it is not about the equality act and actually the single sex provisions in the equality act are not really up for discussion because it doesn't form the basis that the equality act doesn't impact the gender recognition certificate so I think I can only echo Colin in saying look at the evidence and just be very clear in terms of what the bill does and what the bill doesn't do and the bill doesn't open up the equality act for discussion the single sex provisions still remain and also if you're looking at the gender recognition certificate please just remember what we've been talking about in terms of trans people have come out of gender often for years so actually a bit of paper makes absolutely no difference to them accessing these spaces and it doesn't affect any of those rights I don't know anything to that Not loads I guess just to reiterate a little bit of what Colin said so I suppose just in terms of thinking about the law the law when it comes to single sex services and how trans people are treated the group of trans people that it talks about is people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and that will include every single person with a gender recognition certificate but also a much broader group of trans people than that because it covers people proposing to who are undergoing or who have undergone any part of a process for reassigning their sex the short version of that is to say that then changing the way that someone can get a gender recognition certificate does not in any way change the make up of the group of people defined by that protected characteristic so in terms of thinking about how the law works and how decisions are made within the confines of the equality act nothing will change by changing how a person can apply for gender recognition I guess just want to reiterate that violence against women and girls is endemic and I take really seriously the fact that we need to do more or to reduce the experiences of violence that women often have at the hands most often of all by men but also just want to say that trans people of all genders and indeed lesbian gay and bi people of all genders also experience higher rates of gender based violence than the general population and I very much hope and see the women's movement and the trans and wider LGBT movement as allies in fighting the causes of gender based violence and hopefully that's something that we can progress and work on together Thank you. Can I go to Fulton please? Good morning to the panel and firstly can I give my apologies to the panel because I've moved into a new room in my office and the light seems to come and go so it's completely out with my control so if I'm asking questions here and I go into shadow please realise what's happened and also want to thank you for all the the answers so far it's been indeed a very informative first session on this bill two areas I wanted to ask about I know it's been touched on a wee bit by the panos already today but I wanted to ask if you were able to expand on the proposed three month reflection period that's proposed by the bill for an applicant to confirm at the end of that period whether they wish to proceed with the gender recognition certificate is that something that you've got views on? I've already heard indications of some of the views but I think previously the discussion was more around the period before the application and I know that the views on that aspect have been quite given in quite strong terms today but I wonder if you could talk about the proposed three month reflection period and convener, as I'm remote and you're there in Pearson I'm happy for you to share the order that we'll want to come back in but your microphone's on so it is so I think we don't think that the three month reflection period is needed again around the world I think that the only self declaration systems using that also have a reflection period are Belgium and Denmark and I am led to believe that Denmark are actually planning to remove the reflection period from their process because they've found that it's actually not and it's just slowing up applications again I think I would just kind of talk about most trans people at the point where they're applying for legal gender recognition have done an inordinate amount of reflecting on who we are it is not the easiest thing in the world to figure out that you're trans in a world that doesn't give you loads of positive messages and visibility about the fact that that's possible so it normally takes you a fair while to figure out that that's what's going on so that's a fair while to work up the courage to talk to other people about the fact that that's how you see yourself so at the point at which you've done all of that you've come out to your family, your friends you've figured out who you are you've figured out what rights you're able to access, you've learnt what a gender recognition certificate is, you are in a position that you feel confident to swear that you'll be living permanently that way for the rest of your life you probably really don't need another three months to reflect on it you've probably done a lot of reflecting so yeah I think that we don't think that that reflection period is necessary and I know that the vast majority of trans people feel the same way one small thing that I would add is that if the reflection period remains and if that continues to be the case when the bill hopefully becomes law I think that it's really important that there are specific circumstances in which that reflection period can be waved again as Varys mentioned earlier if somebody is approaching the end of their life in a way that that's possible in terms of notice periods for marriage I think it's really important and I also think that there could be some other circumstances where it should be possible for the reflection period to be waved so you might have a trans person who was born in Scotland who's living abroad and perhaps in the country that they're living there's lower levels of protection for trans people than we've got in Scotland so obviously in Scotland you're protected under the Equality Act even if you don't have a GRC but it may be in some countries around the world that you would only be protected without legal gender recognition and so then if a trans person born in Scotland was living abroad and potentially facing persecution or discrimination due to being trans and them obtaining legal gender recognition would kind of aid them in ensuring that they didn't face that discrimination or persecution I think also in that circumstance it would be really important that there was a way to expedite the process so overall definitely don't think the reflection period is needed but if it's maintained I do think it's really important that there are ways that people are able to behave that reflection period in sort of suitable circumstances Thanks for that big call on our farage of anything to add You can go I'll go, thanks I've just turned myself off, apologies I think I would like to say that 82% of the trans young people we consulted with from youth groups, online surveys feel that the three months reflection period post-applications is too long to be unnecessary They've pointed out that applying for a GRC is currently one of the last things that trans men and women do in their transition and that many feel as a result of that they have had ample time to reflect on it and therefore it is utterly unnecessary There's also an interesting point that many young people felt that the reflection period after statutory declaration does not respect their decision effectively contriving article 12 of the UNCRC which is respecting views of the child Just a couple of other quick things Going back to a point I made earlier about the average age of coming out is trans is 15 Now the VIX talked about actually you take a long time sort of in terms of introspection about actually figuring out who you are before you even come out so you can think of a period of time before they come out and maybe if the average age is 15 living in their quiet gender and reflecting on that for years before they turn 16 so actually the addition of another three month waiting period is unnecessary and finally young people have told us that the seriousness of the decision to apply for a GRC that it's an offence to provide a false declaration or applicant is more than enough for young people to take this decision very seriously when we've spoken to young people they are very aware that the severity of the punishment for false declaration is up to two years imprisonment and or a fine and actually that's more than enough signing that statutory declaration and the consequences to mean that this reflection period is also not necessary Thank you Colin, anything to add? Very quickly again I agree with my colleagues and I think it's you know the intention of that statutory period which is outlined in the policy memorandum is to further refer the seriousness of the process and provide further assurance that the applicants have fully and carefully considered their decision I think you've heard very eloquently from Vic and from Barry there about the fact that trans people, trans men and women will have thought about this process very seriously and as as Barry said there there is a solemn statutory declaration in front of a notary publicer a justice of the peace and there are not applications and I think that in itself I think undermines the seriousness of the proposals and the system of self declaration and so we would want to see that that three month reflection period removed from the bill but as Vic said if it remains in the bill then there are specific areas where that should be waived Thank you and back to Fulton please Thanks convener and thanks to the panel for those very thorough and detailed answers the other area I wanted to ask might be a bit more briefly about is the provision in the bill for the person applying to be ordinarily resident in Scotland and I know that there's been some concerns raised that perhaps this might lead to trans people from other parts of the UK travelling to Scotland to apply for a GRC do you think that there's any merit in in these arguments do you think that this is something that we need to look at as a committee going forward when we're scrutinising this bill Who wants to be with us? Who wants to be with us? Vic? It's my understanding that you certainly wouldn't be able to come to Scotland for the weekend as a class as ordinarily resident in order to make an application I think that people who are born in other parts of the UK but who genuinely are ordinarily resident in Scotland should be able to apply I think that's the right approach In fact my main concern around the ordinarily resident requirement is actually in relation to refugees and people who are waiting for their asylum claims to be heard I don't think it's completely legally certain but it seems to be the case that anyone waiting for an asylum claim to be processed as ordinarily resident in Scotland and that might be despite the fact that they could actually be living here for a number of years Given that some people might be coming from a country of origin where legal gender recognition is completely unavailable and also given the fact that they might be here as a refugee as the result of transphobic persecution I think that it's really important that there is provisions in the bill that would allow people waiting on asylum process to also be able to apply for legal gender recognition there are ways of doing this that would allow the ordinarily resident requirement to still remain there could be specific provisions put in that deal specifically with refugees who are making asylum claims but no certainly it doesn't seem to me that the requirement would allow people to kind of as I say come for a long weekend and apply for a gender recognition certificate Conn Nothing to add Okay thanks Fulton do you have any further questions? Thanks Pam was wanting to come in briefly on the last point Thank you convener If there was no GRC certificate how would one protect women prisons against men who say they are women in order to transfer prisons so I just wanted your thoughts round that what are your opinion thoughts? So it is not current Scottish prison service policy to guarantee a trans person that they can be housed on the state that corresponds with the sex on their birth certificate if that's been updated via a gender recognition certificate so by that I mean that if a trans woman has applied for a gender recognition certificate and a birth certificate now says female that does not give her a guarantee that she will be held on the female estate at the minute the policy is to make individualised decisions on the basis of risk assessment that have at the very kind of foundation of them both the trans person in custody but of course all other people in custody as well and so essentially changing the way in which a person can obtain a gender recognition certificate will not change the way that the prison is able to make, the prison service is able to make decisions about who is housed where ensuring that everybody's safety is properly upheld Dr Crawford do you have anything? Nothing Thank you Can I go back to Pam Thank you convener and thanks again for answering all the questions you've had so far and it's been really really helpful. I just want to touch a little bit more on the international evidence if that's okay. In your written evidence you all note what's happening in other countries that have moved to a self ID model so what could you tell us from these international examples about the impact and specifically could you tell us about first of all how has it affected trans people in those countries and have you seen any data or evidence that suggests there has been any abuse of the self ID system in those countries where it's been implemented? I mean so the EU commission published a bit of research quite recently that was looking at the approach to legal gender recognition of all EU member states and it was commissioned at a time that it included the UK as well and so when it was talking when it was looking at the kind of various systems one of the things that it noted was that people who lived in member states that provided legal gender recognition by self declaration felt a significant decrease in the stigmatisation that they found around accessing legal gender recognition and essentially just that it it improved and simplified trans people's lives. It allowed them to make sure that having documents that reflect who they are was not a difficult or onerous thing to do it removed a lot of stress for people I think some people also remarked that they found that if they'd had sort of less supportive families that people were more supportive both because they'd obtained legal gender recognition but also because the policy shift in the country meant that it was sort of demonstrated that leadership was showing that this was being trans was an okay thing to be and this was the way that we should be treating trans people. As far as I am aware, no changes in terms of legal gender recognition have had an impact on then how individual countries or territories make decisions about then how to treat trans people within single sex service provision again I don't know the details of how the sort of equivalence of the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act interact in other parts of the world but as far as I am aware it is similar in most places to how it is in Scotland which is that there are sort of two separate things how you make decisions about service provision and who is or isn't included in a given time is not directly correlated to how you allow trans people to update sex recorded on their best certificate and have legal gender recognition of how they're living I think that a number of years ago TGEU which is a European-wide transgender advocacy organisation I think it was in 2017 they published a paper looking at all of the gender recognition certificates that had been obtained in Argentina Denmark Malta and one other country with self declaration I maybe want to say in Norway it's somewhere here in my notes but basically of more than 17,000 people who had been legally recognised there were two cases of repeat applications both of those were around people who had come out as trans transitions obtained legal gender recognition and then faced a significant amount of hostility and discrimination due to their transition and just felt unable to continue to live in a way that reflected how they felt about themselves and actually those people went on to reapply when their circumstances changed later so all of the evidence that we seem to have from all around the world is that what changing this law or what changing a gender recognition law does is it means that trans people are treated better trans people have access to identity documents that reflect who we are and by and large there are no other impacts beyond very very good ones for a very very small number of trans people Thank you Do you have anything to add? The only one thing I would add is that I would hope the committee may take evidence from some of the countries that have operated this system and to hear first hand from them as well about their experience of it I think that would be a good thing for the committee to do Thank you Well thank you all that that concludes this evidence session so thank you all for attending we will now suspend the meeting for a change of witnesses Thank you and now welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses so Alistair MacDonald director of policy and human rights monitoring and Melanie Field chief strategy and policy officer the equality and human rights commission you're both very welcome and I invite Melanie to make a short opening statement Thank you and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence to you today importantly with it being the international day against homophobia, biphobia and transphobia on a subject of great importance to trans people so I want to start by affirming the equality and human rights commission's commitment to protecting trans people from discrimination and harassment the equality act 2010 for which we are the statutory regulator protects trans people from gender reassignment discrimination at all points on their transition journey but we recognise that trans people still face prejudice, hate crime and unacceptable barriers in many areas of their lives we're actively working to address those barriers including to ensure fair treatment at work and improved access to healthcare for trans people and in that context we strongly welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to increase funding and reduce waiting times for gender identity services as we'll no doubt go on to discuss the commission has modified our position on proposals for amending the process for a person to change their legal sex since the Scottish Government consulted on reform of the Gender Recognition Act first in 2017 and again in early 2020 over the past year or so our board, advised by our statutory Scotland and Wales committees, has considered a range of work related to gender reassignment this included guidance for schools and on single sex services proposals to ban conversion therapy, issues related to data collection and UK and Scottish Government proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act the board wanted to assess the most up to date evidence and legal analysis, not least because key concepts have been tested in court with judgments that can seem contradictory and to consider the different initiatives being taken forward by the governments of Great Britain and the evolving national debate on matters of sex and gender over the same period we developed proposals for our new strategic plan and conducted a public consultation on it. We received almost 900 responses with 10% of individual respondents and 13% of participating organisations from Scotland there was a strong level of support from consultees for the importance of the commission's role advising on law and policy related to how sex and gender based rights should be balanced this is the context in which our board wanted to review the issues against our statutory remit to regulate a legal framework that protects nine overlapping protected characteristics this remit requires us to consider how the rights of one personal group might be affected by those of others in light of the law we regulate balancing overlapping rights can be complex and challenging in the case of reform of the Gender Recognition Act we reached the position that more detailed consideration is needed before legislative changes made this is because of the continued lack of certainty about the practical consequences for individuals and society of extending the ability to change legal sex from a defined group with a recognised medical condition who have demonstrated their commitment and ability to live in their acquired gender to a wider group questions continue to be raised in different quarters about potential consequences for example in relation to the collection and use of data participation and drug testing in competitive sport measures to address barriers facing women and practices within the criminal justice system we fully recognise that these issues are complex, sensitive and divide opinion but the current polarised debate is causing much harm and distress to people on all sides it's our view that these questions should be engaged with and discussed and addressed carefully, openly and with respect before legislative changes made ensuring that the practical impact of proposals is understood and concerns are addressed is vital if legislative changes are to be effective in improving the lives of trans people and further damage and division is to be avoided in the meantime we consider that the established legal concept of sex together with the existing protections from gender reassignment discrimination and the ability for trans people to obtain legal recognition of their gender collectively provide the correct balanced legal framework for the protection of everyone we continue to work to drive practical improvements for trans people and support the progress governments are making including reducing the fee for applying for a gender recognition certificate the commitment to digitalise the process and urgently needed improvements in access to gender identity services in addition under our new strategy the commission will be focusing on fostering good relations around the most complex issues and debates in our society today including matters of sex and gender thank you thank you very much we'll now move on to questions starting with Maggie please thanks very much Joe, good morning and thank you both for joining us this morning and thank you for your opening statement Melanie I've got a few questions to put to you and I suppose as somebody who some of us were newly elected last May and advice to political parties to candidates prior to that from the EHRC was that gender recognition reform was needed and was urgent can I ask and you've outlined that your position has changed on that can I ask why you think that legal gender recognition is no longer in need of reform what analysis you did to come to this change of view and is this view shared by the EHRC as a whole including the Scotland office and I've got a couple of others after that but if you could start with that thanks I'll start answering if that's okay and maybe Alistair can come in so first of all I would answer your last question which is that the position is the position of the commission that's a position our policy positions are taken by the board with advice from the Scotland and Wales committees and so those are corporate positions that the whole commission is signed up to so I think the the things that have as I tried to set out in my opening statement the things that have changed I guess are around the context so we looked at proposals from the Scottish Government and the UK Government who at that time were both putting forward proposals for reform and we responded to those I think it's fair to say that that those proposals and the discussion of them led to quite a heated and growing debate with questions and concerns being raised from various quarters in the meantime the UK Government then decided not to proceed with reform and the board also looked at various other issues that have come up in the context of gender reassignment and I think looking at those issues in the round the conclusion was that there wasn't sufficient certainty about the impact of making the legislative changes for us to be able to support them at this time Alistair, did you want to add in? No, I would just emphasise that point on the fact that we've considered these issues on an on-going basis from a range of new and different perspectives and have been considering the views of stakeholders from all parts of the debate on what are very complex issues and have been considering the evolving jurisprudence around these issues as well and key concepts continue to be tested in the courts some of that results in differing or even contradictory judgments and we're conscious that a range of concepts remain to be tested in the courts and a further definition would be welcome so that we can probably understand the implications of proposed changes on policymaking, on data collection on sport, on issues sex-based rights issues and so on. Sorry, can I just clarify that Alistair, you've just mentioned clarity around definition definition of what? I don't believe I said definition I was to understand the implications of some of the proposed changes on some of the issues that I listed. I didn't use that word in fact. I suppose it would be interesting and I appreciate that it may not be possible but it would be interesting if you would be able and willing to share the advice that was sent to the board if you could share that with us that would be really helpful and I suppose following on from that I'm also interested in what engagement you had with trans people and organisations who support trans people in coming to your reformed, your changed view on this. I don't know which view wants to go first. Sorry, just to come back on the point that Alistair was making in terms of I think he talked about concepts rather than definitions and we were thinking we've been thinking there particularly about the legal cases relating to the Scottish and England and Wales census and the definition of sex in those contexts and also the meaning of sex in the Scottish legislation relating to women on public boards. So those are the sorts of areas where there has been some litigation. I mean we have ongoing dialogue with a whole range of stakeholders including trans representative organisations so over this period which has been a number of years we have continued to have regular dialogue with those organisations I've had meetings with mermaids, stone wall various trans rights organisations and my colleagues in the Scotland office will have been engaging with trans representative organisations in Scotland too. In coming to our policy positions we don't generally consult on those we're a national expert organisation and regulator so while we obviously want to understand the range of views in a debate we will come to our own view based on the evidence that we've looked at and our analysis of the law. Thanks my last question unless I'm allowed a cheeky other one. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has written to EHRC to clarify mandates and I know you will know this but SHRC suggests that EHRC is required to seek the consent of the Scottish Human Rights Commission where it proposes to take action on devolved human rights matters and we would see gender recognition reform as one such matter Can you outline how the two organisations met what discussions have you had with SHRC and has there been a discussion explicitly around the seeking of consent when taking action on devolved human rights matters? Yes we have met with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and discussed the issues of our respective mandates I think there is clarity between the two commissions about that the position is that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has a mandate to promote and protect human rights in Scotland in respect of matters that fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the equality and human rights commission is responsible for human rights matters that are reserved The question of consent I don't think has been explicitly addressed in relation to this matter I think in the case of this matter there are equality implications and of course the EHRC's mandate extends to equality in Scotland There are complexities about how rights are balanced within equality law but I think if we had any concerns about respective mandates then we would have further discussions with the Scottish Human Rights Commission about that Okay thanks that's helpful I'll leave it there Pam Duncan-Glancy Thank you Good morning Thank you for the information that you've provided in advance and for answering the questions that we have for you today I want to ask a quick question about the change in your view and then to move on to the interactions between the GRI and the Equality Act if that's okay My first question is have you explained your change in position to trans people and can you set out the considerations you've used to do that? Upon reaching this decision in January we reached out to a range of organisations representing trans people to, in a similar way to how we've explained it today to set out the rationale for the commission reaching this position As you'd expect there were differences of perspective on that but I think they were direct and robust conversations which we welcome we want to continue to maintain those dialogues on these complex issues including or especially with organisations who might disagree with us so certainly we could list out who those organisations were Melanie has mentioned some of them but yes we did engage with them on reaching this position in January Can you say something about some of the legal considerations that you used to change your view? I think Melanie has set out some of the issues that are being tested in the courts at the moment I would say there I suppose what a range of considerations including testing key concepts in the courts looking at the evidence which we agree needs to be strengthened and we will play our part in doing that around the rights of trans people and also as we set out in our opening statement that I suppose the wider changing context and improved understanding which of course we welcome on the implications of changing one's legal sex and how that impacts on the delivery of policy, delivery of public services on our understanding of these issues so certainly the legal framework and we are the regulator of the equality act was an essential part of it and we considered a range of other factors in reaching this position as well Thank you I appreciate that that's helpful, thank you Can you tell us so at the minute anyone who has a gender recognition certificate of course is protected by the equality act under the gender recognition aspect of it but there are also a wider group of people who are also protected by that who don't currently have a gender recognition certificate so when there is that kind of broader group of people who currently have the rights that are afforded to people whether or not they have a GRC so could you set out what you think the implications of a legal the effect of a GRC are and in particular how you view the relationship between the GRC and the equality act and then finally on this particular point are you aware of any legal cases relating to the use of single sex spaces when the possession of a gender recognition certificate has been a factor in determining access or exclusion Thank you I mean it is very complex I would say to start with so broadly the relationship between the gender recognition act and the equality act is that the gender recognition certificate has the effect of changing how someone's sex is recognised in law including in the equality act under the sex discrimination provisions so a trans woman with a GRC under the equality act would be treated as a woman for the purpose of the sex discrimination provisions a trans woman without a GRC would be legally male under the sex provisions so that's how the two pieces of legislation interact you're quite right to say that the gender reassignment protections are not predicated on possession or not of a gender recognition certificate they cover a very broad range of people who from the point of proposing to undergo a process of reassigning sex to having undergone that process and the process can be a medical or social transition so I think there is it's fair to say there is a loose link between the current criteria in the gender recognition act which relate to medical evidence and evidence of social transition and the way that gender reassignment is defined in the equality act but it's quite a tenuous relationship I am not aware of any legal cases relating to the provision of single sex services that have turned on the question of possession or not of gender recognition certificate have I answered all your questions thank you can I ask something on international evidence is that okay of this particular issue do you want to come back to the international we'll do that so we'll do it at the end like we've done before can we go on to Pam Goswell please thank you convener and thank you Melanie for your open statement the Scottish Government asserts that GRC does not change rights under the equality act but has not produced a reasoned explanation for its position on the EHRC letter to Translegal in July 2021 states we think it's unlikely that a trans person without a GRC can claim direct discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment if they are denied access to the single or separate sex service that corresponds with their lived gender I'm aware that the EHRC we're revisiting its guidance on single sex spaces and services could you provide an update on that yes so we have published fresh guidance on new guidance on single sex services and I would need to be reminded of the date that we did that it was quite recently so I mean would you like me to address the point that you made about how the direct and indirect discrimination provisions work so as I was explaining before a person with a gender recognition certificate is legally recognised in their acquired gender as their sex so that's the whole purpose of the gender recognition act so if there were a women only service then a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate would be able to would be a woman and would be able to access that service a trans woman without a gender recognition certificate would be legally male and therefore that service they wouldn't have no automatic right of entry to that service if you like on that basis however in both cases so were the trans women with a GRC to be excluded from that service that would be direct discrimination direct gender reassignment discrimination unless it could be objectively justified and were a trans woman without a GRC excluded from that service then that could be indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless it could be objectively justified so decisions about single sex services excluding or providing different service for trans people needs to be justified regardless of whether the individual has a gender recognition certificate or not you'll see here as well that the application of the law here is highly specific and depending on context we can set out the general principles as Melanie has but actually the specifics of the case will determine whether direct or indirect discrimination has occurred I just got a follow up on that thank you, earlier on the first panel I did ask the question around prisoner services so it's just touching on that you mentioned that whether they have a GRC or not it could be discriminative so what if where does the where does the onus lie when it comes to prison services and they decide the prison service where somebody should go the duty not to discriminate would fall upon the prison service in that they're delivering a public function and they shouldn't unlawfully discriminate in doing so my understanding is that there is guidance produced which is followed by prisons and it's very much based on an individual assessment of need and risk in each case and that appears to be an appropriate way of making sure that there is no inadvertent discrimination whether direct or indirect thank you thank you, Alexander thank you very much convener Melanie in your opening statement you talked about the haram and distress on both sides of this debate and how the changes could impact can I once again go back to looking at possibly the women and girls issue because that is where we perceive most of the haram and distress seem to be focusing so if we can talk about there is a code of practice that is out there that states and ensures that trans people according to the agenda are supported and when it comes to the letter that you wrote to the cabinet secretary from the EHRC you talked about issues about data collection and also the difficulties about participating in drugs testing competitive sport and measures that are there to facing barriers to women now all of that has been evoked in this whole debate and that's where some of the hostility has appeared so can I ask you to clarify as to why that was specific in the letter to the cabinet secretary and what implications there are for those individuals within some of that and collecting some of that information and data will be affected thank you well I think that the matters referred to in the letter to the Scottish Government were examples of the kinds of questions and concerns of which we have become aware during this period when this debate has been ongoing and growing I mean I think on the data side I referred earlier to the litigation about the census in Scotland and the census in England and Wales where the courts respectively came to different views about the meaning of sex in the census and I mean as the equality and human rights commission we are very keen that the public bodies in particular in developing public policy should do so on the basis of good data and therefore we think that there needs to be clarity about the basis on which data is collected whether or not it's collected on a consistent basis and what errors there might be in data sets that is used as the basis of taking decisions about public policy so that's one area where I think there are questions that have been raised there are different views that have been come to and I think what we're saying is we really want to be clear about this we regulate the public sector equality duty on public bodies and as part of that encourage public bodies to collect and use data about equality impacts so we want to make sure that that data is good data that can be relied upon to make some decisions do you want to add anything? Maybe just to speak to the aspect of your question around a polarised debate which I think is a link but maybe a separate point in that we have specific concerns around public policy making on the basis of good data as Melanie says but also around the broader discourse around these issues which are complex and are advice and do evoke strong feelings and we as a public body with a duty to help foster good relations are concerned that it has become quite toxic that certain voices are excluded from the debate including trans people and that the space for more constructive respectful debate has been slightly squeezed on these issues so we do want to play our role in helping foster more constructive dialogue around what are complex and evolving issues that for many people are deeply personal Following on from Alasdair there has been some concerns raised about the possibility of having an impact in increasing the women's participation and representation in public life because of that dubiety or the discord that's already there do you think that that is a possibility that the outcome could be affected by that? We know that women of all backgrounds are discouraged from participating in public life we've done a lot of work on this and the data around the numbers of women who for example voluntarily stepped down at the last UK election are quite striking the evidence around the level of social media abuse received by women representatives all parliaments is again quite disturbing so our concern is that people, no matter their views or background, are being discouraged from participating in what is a really important debate that needs to be held constructively and respectfully in order to work through these complex issues Thank you, convener Pam Duncan-Glancy Thank you, convener I'll just have a short supplementary how would you suggest the committee squares the issue that we might have with trans people who feel that this has been one of the most consulted piece of legislation ever in fact I think that some of the evidence we've heard and that the length of time it's gone on has not helped the discourse that has been described for anyone actually how could we square that with getting the additional assurances and legal advice that you have said is required Well I mean I think it's difficult and I understand the frustration on the part of trans people who have kind of had promises held out that have not been delivered yet both north and south of the border and obviously in England and Wales that prospect is not forthcoming at all I think that as a regulator of the law our sort of guiding principle is that the impact of legislative change should be understood so it's about really understanding and being able to mitigate potential impacts and address concerns constructively before pushing ahead with changing the law I mean I was sort of reflecting before we came in about it's not the same but I was involved in the legislation to allow same sex couples to marry which happened first in England and Wales and then in Scotland and there are some parallels in terms of the deeply held views and concerns that people had about what felt like quite a big change in the fabric of our nation and in a concept that had history behind it and that people attached certain values to and I would just draw some parallels here and what I felt was really important in the equal marriage legislation was that the concerns were able to be expressed and addressed and the legislation was constructed in such a way that appropriate safeguards were built into it and the result was that equal marriages now accepted and uncontrovertial and that's what I would like to happen here Could I just pick up on I mean we do understand people's concerns with potentially on-going consultation I think we would absolutely recommend that that is again respectful and constructive and it's focused on the absolute key issues that are needed to give people assurance and provide the appropriate information and safeguards for all parties in this debate and there are other things that can help in the meantime that the existing process can be improved we absolutely welcome that the UK level the significant reduction in price and digitalisation of the process and we would support any further measures to to make the processes a straightforward and accessible and inclusive within the existing framework as possible and of course there are other issues that we know that trans people care about we've talked about access to health services really really significant waiting time for many people that is the primary issue and waiting lists of up to five years don't allow people to begin that journey that they choose to trans people want to be able to work and be educated free from discrimination as well and we are looking at what action we can be taking on an on-going basis to improve trans people's lives in those other areas as well thank you thank you and Maggie thanks very much just a couple of things to come back on and to maybe explore a little bit in a little bit more detail firstly Alexander talked about the letter that EHRC wrote to the cabinet secretary here setting out the change in your position and in that letter and this is a direct quote he refers to a wider group who identify as the opposite gender at a given point and that letter expressed concerns that that wider group may be able to obtain a GRC under the current draft bills proposals can you explain what is meant by wider group yes and before I do I would just recognise that tone and language is really important in this debate and I think I don't want to say anything that anyone might fence that you reading me back that phrase I can see how that phrasing might be difficult for some people so I think what we were getting at was that the current process is that there are two criteria for obtaining a gender recognition certificate having a diagnosis of gender dysphoria which thankfully is no longer classified as a mental health condition which I think is really important in terms of seeking to address the stigma and prejudice that faces trans people and secondly is the criteria to provide evidence of living in the acquired gender for a period of two years and the legislation before the draft bill before the bill before the Scottish Parliament has a period of three months and I think we would like to understand better how the change from two years to three months what impact that has on understanding the extent to which an individual is confident that they want to make this significant legal, social and psychological commitment so that's what we're alluding to in that letter OK, thank you, that's really helpful and another one if I may you touched on it in that response as well Melanie and earlier you talked about the medicalisation and the distinction between medical transition and social transition I'm interested in your views then around in one of your answers to Pam what working to make the process as inclusive and accessible as possible given that trans identity is no longer considered by the World Health Organization as a mental illness why still retain the discussion and the need for proof of gender dysphoria well I suppose our focus is on the wider implications of the proposed changes rather than necessarily the individual measures, I understand where the question is coming from we we do absolutely welcome that shift away from the idea of gender dysphoria being a disorder but we also acknowledge that it is a condition that still causes profound discomfort or a perspective that does not rather than challenging the individual measures being proposed here we are more focused at the moment on those wider implications that we have talked about about public policy making and about data and about other issues and within that framework we do want to see it become more inclusive and we do think that further consideration is needed before those specific changes are made before specific changes around the things that Melanie you were talking about the concerns around the reduction from two years to three months that kind of thing or specifically the change in the requirement for gender dysphoria diagnosis and that medicalised approach I am talking generally about the legislation and about those wider implications rather than necessarily the individual measures within the legislation at this point it is more about the implications of a broader group of people changing their legal sex and how we understand the knock-on effects on policy making and data and so on that is really where our focus has been at the moment on the impact on policy making and data on changing the broader criteria for changing legal sex and those implications more generally rather than necessarily the individual measures the impact is very clearly using on policy making and data collection that kind of thing rather than on the impact on trans people themselves we are obviously we are of course focused on the implications of trans people gender assignment is a protected characteristic and as I say we are working on a range of different fronts to protect them from discrimination and harassment as we said in our opening statement this is just one of those complex areas where we are considering the implications and the overlapping rights across nine protected characteristics but we are absolutely committed to the rights of trans people okay thank you all very much thank you both for your evidence that concludes the public part of our meeting I mean I'm moving to private sorry Karen were you trying to come in I have got a question if that's okay sorry sorry Karen apologies I have missed you and I see you pan by apologies ahead of myself thank you convener and welcome to the committee under this bill it would make a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or a false application and this could be punishable by up to two years in prison and or a fine what are your thoughts on that we think this is a really significant personal and legal decision that an individual is taking and the process should be absolutely protected from any misuse it's a really important process for those people who do wish to change legal sex I think there are comparisons in other areas of law where statutory declarations are used so we think anything that emphasises the importance of this decision and protects it from any misuse and we would support so that it is as good a process as it can be for trans people who wish to change their legal sex thank you enjoy it to come in well I was just reflecting going to reflect that that's the current situation under the current gender recognition act and I don't think we had any particular concerns raised about that in discussions that I've had with trans people and their organisations they see it as an obviously it's an important thing for trans people to be able to change their legal sex and I haven't I'm not aware of any particular concerns that have been raised with us about that requirement in the bill and what are your views in regard to for it being a safeguard and measure that we've had discussions about three month reflection periods and three month application process periods do you think that this potential for prosecution is a good safeguarding measure? I mean the evidence suggests that this isn't a decision that people take lightly anyway it's a very as we've said a very significant personal legal decision so our engagement with trans people and their representative organisations suggests that people think very carefully about making such a significant decision so Melanie did you? No I think that's right I don't think that as Alice just said before aligns with other statutory declarations that people make when they're doing some big legal thing which this is Thank you Apologies for that I need to improve my screaming here Pam do you want to come in again as well? Please if that's okay convener thank you I'm keen to know what you have maybe learned from similar counterpart organisations in other countries where self declaration has already happened and in fact in some cases has been the case for a number of years now so could you tell us anything about the use of self idea international that you've learned from your work with partners or anything else and do you have any evidence that you could share with us just now which can speak to the impact of self declaration on trans people and also on the impact of self declaration on women? I think we considered these issues in the round as we discussed in our opening statement part of that was to look at international comparators the current UK legislation is somewhat in the middle between as you say countries that focus more on self identification or declaration some of which are quite close to us Ireland and some Nordic countries and other European countries there are other countries internationally that have some kind of medical process in order to undergo this transition and obviously the UK legislation sits somewhere in the middle in terms of the genders photo diagnosis and other conditions we our board did consider those issues I think the evidence is still emerging on the impact we're a member of a range of international groups and we'll continue to monitor that evidence as we engage with those groups that's a significant part of how we understand emerging issues on compatible ones in different countries in all of that work have you got any evidence of any abuse of the self ID system? I mean we weren't necessarily focused on abuse of the system as much as wanting to understand those wider implications I don't want to parrot on that position again but it is a really important part of what we think and our emphasis has been less about any abuse of the system but rather understanding the implications of broadening access to this process and what that means for services and data collection and so on so that's been more our emphasis and in looking at that and in broadening it you haven't found any evidence of a negative impact I think the evidence is still emerging we do want to understand that some changes are quite recent and we want to monitor with our partners what that impact is Okay, thank you So I'm not aware that we've had any kind of formal discussions with our international counterparts on this but I've been involved in some kind of informal discussions and I think the overriding thing that I would take away from those is that there is a real recognition that domestic context matters and there is a recognition that the debate in the UK is particularly heated and that that isn't replicated across other states necessarily and therefore I think international counterparts as we always are are always conscious of domestic context in how we can take forward our work Thank you Thank you Okay, unless there's any further questions Thanks very much So that now does conclude the public part of our meeting and we'll move into private session for our final items on our agenda Thank you very much