Chamber and committees

Finally, do you see any potential issue if there is divergence between how the Scottish Prison Service deals with GRCs—and gender reassignment more generally—and how things happen elsewhere in the UK? Given the changes that have happened south of the border, if divergence happens, do you see any problems?

Kevin Guyan, thank you for your comments so far. In your opening remarks, you talked about data not being neutral, and in response to one of Rachael Hamilton’s questions you said that we are drowning in evidence for reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Will you comment in more detail on specific public policy areas? Rachael Hamilton touched on a few. A few weeks ago, we heard from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that we need to pause and consider how the proposed reform of the GRA would impact the collection and use of data. Given the numbers that we are talking about and what we actually use data for, will you talk in a little more detail about the policy implications? What is the material reality of the bill as it stands, in that regard?

I was asking about the material reality—the consequences for policy.

Thank you. I will leave it there.

Thank you for that, Karen.

Chris, in your opening statement, you talked about the concerns about the impact of the bill as it currently stands on other protected characteristics. Can you say a little bit more about that?

Thanks for that.

Conditions will need to be satisfied for any GRC application and you will then be required to give information as to the effect of the GRC, as per section 3 of the bill. Have you determined what that information will include and what you will be looking for?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us and for your opening remarks.

My first question is for Paul Lowe and is about the processing and assessing of applications for GRCs. Can you outline how you would go about that? Would it merely be about accepting the statutory declaration at face value? What checks and balances do you envisage having in place?

Good morning to the panel. I thank you for joining us, and for your opening statements and the written materials that you provided in advance. I have a couple of questions around the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the medical panel that is in place under the current legislation.

Perhaps I can come to Anthony Horan first. You talked about the higher level of suicidal ideation and the negative health impacts that many members of the trans community experience disproportionately in comparison with the broader population. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that you said something along these lines: that you would not want to see a lessening of engagement with, or connection to, the medical profession or the psychiatric profession, and that you would therefore like that panel to be retained. Did I understand you correctly there? However, we have heard from people who have been through that process that they never actually speak to the panel. There is not the patient-doctor relationship, or the supportive relationship, that you might expect. There is just a body of evidence that is sent to, and then assessed by, what is, for the trans person—to be frank—an anonymous panel.

Great; thank you.

You said that it is an effective means of engaging people in policy making. Does that link to your point about, in essence, what data is for? We use data in order to inform and change society for the better, rather than its having any intrinsic value in and of itself. Is that more or less what you are saying?