Chamber and committees

Malcolm, in your opening remarks, you said that it might not always be possible to balance the various aspects, that creative ways of ensuring that no one is left out needed to be found and that consultation on the issue should be meaningful and respectful.

Last year, sportscotland—jointly with the other UK sporting councils—issued guidance. There were found to be two polarising issues. On one side, there was a view that trans people should be included in sport and that there should not be any restriction, whereas others saw that trans inclusion should be subject to regulation to ensure fair sporting competition. The UK sporting councils advised that there should be some kind of balance, but they also indicated that bodies should define their own rules, using a framework to interpret the guidance, which would help to support outcomes for each sport. How are sporting bodies in Scotland being supported to ensure that trans inclusion in sport is balanced with the requirements for fairness and safety?

Hugh, do you have any comments on that balance? Malcolm has given examples of types of sport that might have a different attitude or might have to go a different way, because of the nature of the sport or the competition that is involved.

Good morning, panel. The bill also covers the issue of residency and provides that those born or “ordinarily resident in” Scotland will have the opportunity to apply for a gender recognition certificate. Concerns have been expressed that that might mean that trans people from other parts of the United Kingdom might choose to come to Scotland to apply for a certificate, either because of family circumstances or because they do not have a supportive network at home.

My question, which is for Bruce Adamson first and then Ellie Gomersall, is: do you believe that that is a potential concern? Please also give us your view on the requirement for residency as it relates to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Ellie Gomersall, do you also believe that there needs to be a better and more respectful approach and that the process will contain that and manage to challenge what there is at present?

I very much concur with that. As the convener indicated, it is a difficult situation, but it exists and we need more clarity on it. What has been suggested would give some of that clarity at this stage, so that the committee can then consider what gaps there may be in the process and ensure that there is an opportunity to look at what has happened in England and Wales with reference to some of the issues, because that is very relevant to the petitioner and the issues that she was trying to raise.

It is important that we take evidence from Natalie Don. Obviously, she is carrying out a consultation, and it would be useful to get an update on how she is progressing with the member’s bill. It would also be advantageous for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to request that it considers a memorial to individuals who were convicted as witches under the 1563 act.

Mr Lyon, communities were very fearful and anxious about the whole process, and they still are. There is no question but that they feel that there might be loss, reduction or diminution of services that they expect.

Can you give assurances to the communities that are served by HIAL airports that there will not be a reduction or diminution of services or aviation safety resulting from roll-out of the new air traffic control system and procedures? As I said, people are still very fearful about what is planned and what will happen.

Supporting those services and ensuring that communities have them is the crux of the matter. What lessons have you learned from the whole fiasco, which has had communities and MSPs up in arms? What have you learned from dealing with that over the past five years, and how can you put lessons that you might have learned into practice in order to ensure that there will be practical action for communities who are still anxious about what might come out of the process?

I am delighted that a number of local authorities responded, although it was only a small number of the total number of local authorities. However, they captured some of the relevant areas, and there is no doubt that the pandemic and its impact is one of those. I suggest that we refer the petition to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, in the context of its wider consideration of local government finances and the post-pandemic recovery.

Melanie Field, in your opening statement you talked about the harm and distress on both sides of the debate and how the changes could have an impact. I go back to the women and girls issue, because that is where we perceive most of the harm and distress to be focused.

There is a code of practice that ensures that trans people are supported according to their gender. The EHRC’s letter of 22 January to the cabinet secretary mentioned data collection issues, difficulties related to

“participation and drug testing in competitive sport”

and

“measures to address barriers facing women”.

Those issues have been invoked in the debate, and that is where some of the hostility has appeared. Can you clarify why those specific issues were mentioned in the letter to the cabinet secretary? What implications are there for the collection of information about the individuals who will be affected?