Chamber and committees

I apologise for the fact that I might need to leave before the evidence session finishes; I thank the convener for letting me get my question in early. I also refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests: a few years ago, I worked for a visual impairment charity for a while.

In their introductory comments, witnesses spoke about the need to bear in mind access. What are your thoughts around support for people who have disabilities or for older people who are looking to be business owners and start companies? Is there enough support for those making the shift from passengers or consumers to business owners and operators? What barriers have the organisations and people who you represent identified? That question goes first to Adam Stachura.

Nicoletta Primo, do you want to come in on that as well?

You mentioned perceptions and culture is a big part of that.

I will leave it there, convener.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. Thank you, Melanie, for your opening statement. I have a few questions to put to you.

Some of us were newly elected in last May’s Holyrood elections. Prior to that, the EHRC’s advice to political party candidates was that gender recognition reform was needed urgently. You have outlined that your position on that has changed. Why do you think that legal gender recognition is no longer in need of reform? What analysis did you do to come to that changed view? Is that view shared by the EHRC as a whole, including the Scotland office?

I have a couple of further questions, but please start there.

I move on to the question of spousal consent and interim GRCs. The bill replicates the current provisions, but what do you think about them? Are you content with them or do they need to change? I will start with Vic Valentine.

You are focusing on the impact on policy making and data.

I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments and her thanks to you not only for the work that you have done in presenting written evidence to us prior to today, but for what you have said already and the support that you provide to the people you and your organisations represent.

I would like to explore in a bit more detail three specific areas of the bill: the requirement to live in one’s acquired or inherent gender for three months; the spousal consent and interim GRC issue; and the person with an interest issue.

Dr Crawford, you spoke a bit about the requirement to live in one’s acquired or inherent gender for three months in your opening remarks. We know that there are competing opinions and views about that. Some people think that three months is about right, some think that it is too long and some think that it is too short. It is a reduction from the current two years, obviously. What is your view on the provision on living in an inherent gender for three months prior to getting a GRC? Should we retain it? Colin Macfarlane said a little about the burden of evidence. Is there any risk that a requirement for proof could creep into the three months? I will start with Mhairi Crawford, and then go to Colin Macfarlane and Vic Valentine.

Do you mean specific changes around the concerns that Melanie Field was talking about, such as the reduction from two years to three months, or do you mean the specific change in the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and that medicalised approach?

Okay. Sorry if I misheard.

I appreciate that this may not be possible, but, if you are able and willing, it would be interesting if you could share with us the advice that was sent to the board. That would be really helpful.

Following on from that, I am also interested in what engagement you had with trans people and organisations that support trans people in coming to your changed view on reform.

Thanks, Vic. Colin, do you have anything to add?