Chamber and committees

Chris Ringland, you mentioned the Cass review, which, as we know, is at the interim report stage. In England, there has been a significant increase in the number of referrals of children and young people to gender recognition clinics. You seem to have quite a strong view on the importance of that review; should the bill be paused until the review publishes in full?

Would the same system apply if someone in, say, an English prison applied for the GRC?

Thank you.

Does that policy override the legal definition itself within the rules? What happens if there is a legal challenge?

Do you think that it would be difficult to challenge or override the individualised assessment that the SPS would normally allow? Do you feel that you are going to be vulnerable to legal challenge?

Would it be possible—

Sorry, Mr Kerr.

It is your turn at last, Dr Guyan—you have waited patiently. In your opening statement, you said that data should reflect experience, and that it should reflect who we are and who we want to be. You said that there is too much data—you can correct me if you did not say that; I was a bit shocked when you said it, so I wanted some clarity there. Is it your position that we should now collect only data based on gender ID, and not data on sex?

I was just referencing the specific examples that I gave, which could be about young people seeking help in gender identification clinics, the gender pay gap and all the other issues that I have raised with regard to how we go through our lives, in terms of how that definition forms public policy, creates services and provides help.

I have a very small question for Mr Lowe. Can you clarify whether the GRC issued to anyone born in Scotland and aged 16 or over will also be available to anyone born here, but who now lives in another part of the UK?

Do any other members of the panel have a view on the Cass review and how important it is in the context of what we are doing in Scotland? It seems not.