Chamber and committees

I realise that, as you have identified, there are challenges around what is reserved and what we have powers over.

To follow on from that, you have talked about building in connections and networks to secure resilience at local level. Are there alternative models of ownership or control that we should be looking at as well? Obviously, there is an important role for the big broadband corporations and for mobile connectivity to support what we are doing, but community ownership offers something adaptable, flexible and localised that can secure the resilience that smaller towns and villages and rural areas need. What are your thoughts on that?

That is fair enough—and that will be important as hybrid working continues after the pandemic.

I have a question about the use of the application of connectivity, whether it is broadband or mobile connectivity, which might link back to something that Fiona Hyslop was talking about. There are real economic opportunities emerging in relation to issues such as how we use 5G data to manage traffic flows, deal with accidents and better predict supply chain issues, and there are also links into health and food supplies. Where in the policy and strategy landscape is thinking happening around such issues?

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement, and I welcome his intention to implement the recommendations of the independent review.

One purpose of the new process of independent investigation is to improve the experience of the families of people who die in custody. That is vital. Another purpose must be to learn lessons about how to prevent future deaths in custody. Can the cabinet secretary say how any learning from the new process will make its way into appropriate changes in policy, practice or operations, to prevent future deaths? Will he also say what we can do to ensure that independent investigations and FAIs are held in a timely manner?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us this morning and for the evidence that you are providing today. I also thank the SHRC for the written evidence that it submitted prior to the meeting.

I have a couple of questions for the SHRC and Victor Madrigal-Borloz. Victor, in your opening remarks, you said that the requirements for a gender identification process include its being accessible, fast and widely available. You then said that there are other requirements that you would be prepared to elaborate on. Can you elaborate on requirements that you see as being necessary and important if we are to get the process right?

I am aware that a couple of my colleagues want to drill down into some of the data questions, and you are covering some of that. In handing back over to the convener, I say that there are different processes here: data collection processes versus the process for obtaining a GRC. I am not sure that we necessarily need to conflate them in this way. I will leave it there for now.

Thanks. That is helpful.

A moment ago, you talked about the importance of language, how it is used and the need for it to be clear and not dehumanising. I was struck by one of your earlier comments in response to one of Rachael Hamilton’s questions on data collection and people answering the sex question based on a process of self-identification or self-declaration. You likened it to the age question, and I think that you said that we do not expect people to

“make up whatever age they like.”

Are you saying that people make up whatever gender they like?

Peter Dunne, I will come to you.

You talked about the importance of the need to mix international good practice and the human rights standards with the lived experience of trans people and those who are going to be most affected by the legislation. In previous evidence sessions, we have heard about the potential for views about who will be most affected to come into conflict. In your comparative analyses, how have you drawn out any conflicts or competitive notions of impact to come to your view on reform?

I want to come back to a couple of things that have been said. I will come to Robin White first.

You have spoken about age and about self-identification and self-declaration. Should there be any gatekeeping, whether that is medical, such as through the gender recognition panel and the assessment of information about dysphoria and other evidence, or should we completely disentangle the process from gatekeeping? How do you see that element of the bill working?

I will leave it there.

I want to explore a bit further the issue of depathologising. I appreciate that the context of private versus state healthcare in Denmark is different, and that we have issues around waiting times that we have well explored. Did that depathologising come across as a really significant shift in the experiences of the trans people you interviewed?