Chamber and committees

Thank you, Reem. I totally respect what you just said.

In your letter, you advised the Scottish Government to pause the bill. However, given that we will be voting on the bill over the next two days, do you personally have confidence that MSPs who are not part of this committee and are not on this call will have time to adequately consider the evidence that you are giving today?

In your letter, you also raised concerns that the views of women’s groups and others who are critical of the bill had not been adequately considered in the bill process. Do you think that these last-minute committee sessions have done or will do anything to rectify that, particularly for the women whom you discuss, who feel that their protections are threatened by the potential for predatory men to access single-sex spaces, or have concerns around spaces becoming mixed sex and women then choosing to self-exclude?

No.

No—

I want to pick up on one point that you made. Obviously, we want to ensure that there is a balance and that women’s rights, safety and privacy are protected, which was not addressed in your submission to the committee.

I want to ask you about the countries that currently have legal recognition of gender-based self-identification. Are there concrete examples that show that that has reduced the number of acts of violence against trans people?

I recognise that you are discussing here—[Interruption.] Did you understand the question? I am sorry about that.

Thank you, Victor, for coming to the committee this evening to give evidence. I want to speak to you about the intervention from your counterpart: the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem. She said that her safeguarding fears were

“based on empirical evidence that ... the majority of sex offenders are male, and that persistent sex offenders will go to great lengths to gain access to those they wish to abuse.”

She is right, is she not? We are all aware of countless examples of the lengths that repeat sex offenders go to in order to access potential victims.

First, can you tell me why you think that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill as it stands will not be similarly abused by violent sex offenders if vital safeguards are removed? Secondly, if you say that that is a possibility, would you agree that a safeguard to prevent convicted sex offenders from applying for a gender recognition certificate is a reasonable and necessary measure?

As the minister said, amendments 40 to 56 seek to remove reference to horses in relation to a deprivation order. Although it would be fair to say that dogs are an essential ingredient of the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog, it would not be fair to say that that applies to horses. If a horse can be the subject of a deprivation order, why does that particular section of the bill not refer to a quad bike or, indeed, to those on foot? The minister has not addressed that inconsistency, despite her attempt to reassure committee members that the schedule provides for the seizure of vehicles. That is covered in another part of the bill, which is inconsistent. No explanation has been given for the inclusion of horses in that section of the bill or for the exclusion of quad bikes or, for that matter, footwear. I fail to see any justification for the inclusion of horses, and I therefore seek, through these amendments, to remove reference to them in the bill.

With regard to the minister’s amendment 175, she says that there is evidence from Police Scotland but, with regard to police powers, the committee heard only opinion from Billy Telford, and not evidence. I would be grateful if the minister could give us a reference for the particular piece of evidence that she was citing in that regard. I also ask the minister whether a deprivation order includes the prevention of possession, sale or transport of an animal in that particular situation.

I have no further comments, and I will press the amendment.

So, that is the actual evidence that you are citing.

I thank the minister for her comments. I believe that the duty to report is an important aspect of all legislation. I hope that the minister would agree that the provisions could have a significant impact, not on things that are specifically in the remit of the bill but as a consequence of the reforms of the 2002 act.

Although I have reflected on whether my amendment is overly prescriptive, I believe that there could be an impact on the matters that I have set out in the amendment, such as jobs and livelihoods, and that there could be biodiversity loss or negative environmental consequences. I do not think that we should underestimate the impact that the bill could have on cultural heritage.

I kind of agree that my amendment could be overly prescriptive. I will bring it back at stage 3. I will withdraw it at this stage, if I may, and will reconsider it on the basis that the minister has stated that the impact will be considered in the business regulatory impact assessment.